AM  HA-Akr;:: 


i     ! 


THE  ANCIENT  Hli DREW  PARLIA:  ii: 'vi' 


^^^^ffiK^y  '^^^^ 

Kk  IIIH 

^Hj 

1 1''  '^ 

:      1   ! 

^^^^H 

i!  ! 


I 


' 


!     lillililllii.iliiil 


I 


^m 


ililllil™, 


{ 


tli- 


1  Hi  hi*  I 

li  iliil  lill!^ 


lii^'i 


361  iSW 


/^ 


^«*»»--^.— ^ 

/ 


THE  AM   HA-ARETZ 


THE    ANCIENT    HEBREW    PARLIAMENT 


A  CHAPTER  IN  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL 
HISTORY   OF   ANCIENT 


BY 


MAYER    SULZBERGER 


And  Abraham  bowed  himself  down  before  the  Am  Ha-Aretz 
Gen.  2312. 


SECOND  PRINTING 


PHILADELPHIA 

JULIUS    H.  GREENSTONE 
I910 


Press  of 

The  new  Era  Printing  Company 

Lancaster,  Pa. 


TO    THE    MEMORY    OF 

HENRY    CLAY   TRUMBULL 

ARCHAEOLOGIST,  RELIGIOUS    TEACHER 

CITIZEN,   SOLDIER,   FRIEND 


PREFACE 


The  following  paper  was  read  before  the  Professors 
and  students  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of 
America  and  their  invited  guests,  on  April  29,  1909,  as 
one  of  a  series  of  popular  lectures. 

Being  printed  in  its  original  form,  indulgence  is  asked 

for  the  redundancies  and  the  deficiencies  incident  to  that 

mode  of  presentation. 

M.  S. 

Philadelphia,  May,  ipop. 


CONTENTS 


I.  Political  Power  of  Am  ha-aretz.  page 

The  Edah,  Nesiim  and  Zekenim 5 

The  Am  ha-aretz   12 

The  Am-ha-aretz  of  the  Hittites  17 

The  Downfall  of  Athaliah 19 

The  Scene  of  the  Revolution 21 

The  Am  ha-aretz  and  the  Later  Kings 27 

The  Am  ha-aretz  (Rosh  ha-Keruim)  elects  Saul 29 

II.  Its  Judicial  Power. 

The  Trial  of  Jeremiah  36 

The  Trial  of  Naboth  41 

III.  The  Witness  of  Literature. 

Am  ha-aretz  in  the  Literature 49 

Rosh  in  the  Literature  53 

The  Judgment  of  Solomon 5^ 

Conclusion   S8 

Indexes. 

Biblical  Passages  Considered 65 

Index 69 

Map  of  Temple  Hill  facing  page 21 


THE  AM  HA-ARETZ 


I 

POLITICAL   POWER 


A 

THE    EDAH 
NESIIM    AND    ZEKENIM 

The  great,  the  predominating-  influence  of  Israel  on  the 
religion  of  the  civilized  world  is  universally  acknowl- 
edged. As  regards  the  civil  government  of  the  old 
Hebrew  commonwealth,  the  case  is  different.  On  that 
point  opinions  fluctuate;  one  school  looks  upon  it  as  an 
awesome  and  mysterious  institution,  under  immediate 
Divine  direction,  and  without  important  interference  by 
human  agents;  while  the  other  school  views  it  with  lofty 
superiority  as  the  crude  and  unsuccessful  attempt  of  a 
people  relatively  insignificant  in  numbers  and  power,  to 
form  a  government  which  should  somehow  strive  to 
match  itself  with  the  great  empires  of  the  ancient  world. 

In  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  such  a  question 
as  the  government  of  ancient  Israel,  a  few  leading  prin- 
ciples must  be  borne  in  mind.  The  spirit  of  a  people 
manifests  itself  in  its  beliefs  and  its  institutions;  the 
former  give  shape  to  its  religion,  the  latter  to  its  politics. 
So  that  in  the  past  as  in  the  present,  every  nation  may  be 
said  to  be  characterized  by  its  church  and  by  its  state. 

To  say,  as  many  do,  that  the  Hebrew  people  had  an 
especial  genius  for  religion,  but  a  special  lack  of  faculty 


6  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

for  politics,  is  to  confound  individual  psychology  with 
national  psychology.  A  particular  man  may  have  a  pecu- 
liarly contemplative,  ethical,  or  mystical  temperament, 
and  thereby  show  that  he  has  more  genius  for  the  study 
and  practice  of  religion  than  for  any  other  sphere  in 
life;  but  that  a  nation  should  exist  in  which  all  active 
temperaments  have  the  same  bias,  is  purely  inconceivable, 
since  both  religion  and  politics  are  expressions  of  the 
human  spirit.  Any  nation  that  is  characterized  by  pro- 
fundity or  loftiness  of  thought  and  permanence  of 
achievement  in  the  one  direction,  must  necessarily  have 
powerfully  expressed  itself  also  in  the  other  direction. 
Since  religion  is  the  way  with  which  men  live  with  God, 
and  politics  is  the  way  with  which  men  live  with  men, 
the  two  tendencies  are  closely  intertwined  and  insep- 
arable. 

The  history  of  Israel  on  the  religious  side  has  been 
many  times  treated  by  great  scholars  and  thinkers, 
Jewish,  Christian  and  infidel.  The  achievements  in  that 
field  have  been  enormous.  In  singular  contrast  is  the 
narrowness  of  our  information  on  the  governmental 
history  of  Israel,  and  the  mass  of  learned  labor  and 
acumen  devoted  to  the  study  of  the  Bible  during  the 
last  century  does  not  seem  to  have  added  much  to  our 
knowledge  on  this  subject. 

It  may  be  useful  therefore  to  leave  the  text-books  and 
to  look  at  the  Bible  itself. 

The  general  impression  left  on  the  mind  by  reading  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  that  Israel  was 
governed  by  a  chief  (Nasi,  Shophet,  Melech),  who  was 
at  the  head  of  the  military  and  civil  authorities,  and  that 
alongside  of  him  was  a  High  Priest  who  controlled  the 
ecclesiastical  establishment ;  that  the  Chief  had  a  Council, 
probably  bi-cameral,  to  determine  national  policies,  that 
the  smaller  chamber  was  composed  of  twelve  princes 
(Nesiim)  and  the  larger  of  seventy  elders  (Zekenim), 


POLITICAL    POWER  7 

and  that  the  two,  in  General  Assembly,  constituted  the 
Edah  (congregation  or  parliament)  of  the  nation. 

The  modern  school  of  Biblical  critics  look  upon  this 
picture  as  fanciful  and  as  describing  institutions  dreamed 
of  but  not  actually  established.  Our  purpose  is  to  take 
up  only  one  part  of  the  subject,  namely  that  which  refers 
to  the  existence  in  ancient  Israel  of  a  national  Council, 
possessing  large  powers  and  acting  as  a  constitutional 
restraint  upon  the  caprice,  wickedness  or  arrogance  of 
kings. 

The  picture  presented  by  the  narrative  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  itself  a  fact  of  importance.  The  imagination  of 
man  is  rarely  strong  enough  to  create  images  out  of  noth- 
ing. We  ask  ourselves  where  was  the  model  from  which 
this  picture  was  painted?  How  did  the  idea  of  a  con- 
stitutional parliamentary  restraint  upon  the  monarch 
reach  the  writer's  consciousness? 

To  these  questions  there  appears  to  be  no  sufficient 
answer. 

The  passages  in  which  the  Zekenim  are  mentioned 
present  many  minute  evidences  of  the  fact  that  in  the 
writer's  consciousness  the  Council  was  an  institution 
whose  mode  of  working  was  universally  known. 

When  God  speaks  to  Moses  who  is  tending  the  flocks 
of  his  father-in-law,  and  invites  him  to  the  leadership 
of  his  nation,  the  existence  of  a  national  Council  is 
coupled  with  the  tender :  "  Go  and  gather  the  elders  of 
Israel  together;  thou  shalt  come,  thou  and  the  elders  to 
the  King  of  Egypt"  (Exod.  Sie.is). 

To  the  mind  of  Moses  such  leadership  is  impossible 
to  a  man  unskilled  in  forensic  eloquence  with  which  to 
win  the  Council  to  his  way  of  thinking  (Exod.  4io). 
And  this  necessity  is  tacitly  admitted  when  God  names 
Aaron  as  the  spokesman  who  can  sway  the  Council  and 
the  people  (Exod.  4i6),  and  who  in  the  event  actually 
does  so:  "The  people  believed"  (Exod.  429-31)- 


8  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

Moses  convokes  the  Zekenim  when  the  great  Paschal 
service  is  to  be  adopted  (Exod.  1221) ;  when  he  submits 
for  acceptance  or  rejection  the  offer  to  Israel  to  become 
the  Lord's  people  (Exod.  iQt.s)  ;  and  when  the  tribes  are 
numbered  (Numbers  iis). 

Moreover  the  Zekenim  of  all  the  tribes  being  too 
numerous  for  practical  work,  a  special  representative 
Council  of  seventy  selected  from  among  the  whole  num- 
ber is  instituted  and  their  pronouncements  are  declared  to 
be  of  the  same  quality  as  those  of  Moses  himself  (Num- 
bers 1 1 16. 17)-  A  special  meeting  place  is  assigned  to 
them  (Numbers  1I24)  and  the  mode  of  their  convoca- 
tion is  arranged  (Numbers  1O2-8).  No  influence  can 
procure  membership  for  any  but  representatives  of  the 
several  tribes  in  due  proportion,  Levi  excepted,  an  exclu- 
sion which  rouses  the  wrath  of  Aaron  and  Miriam 
against  Moses  (Numbers  122-15). 

The  Edah  or  General  Assembly  is  composed  of  two 
chambers,  the  smaller  one  being  the  twelve  princes 
(Nesiim)  and  the  more  numerous  the  seventy  elders 
(Zekenim).  The  priests  are  custodians  of  two  silver 
trumpets.  If  one  is  blown,  the  Nesiim  (princes)  alone 
assemble;  if  the  two  are  blown,  both  houses  come 
together  (Numbers  1O4.3). 

When  the  Assembly  adopts  a  proposition  there  is  a 
formula:  Na'aseh,  we  will  do  (Exod.  193  243) ;  Na'aseh 
ve-nlshma',  we  will  do  and  be  obedient  (Exod.  24^)  ; 
Na'avod-Nishma',  we  will  serve,  we  will  obey   (Josh. 

2422-24)' 

The  powers  of  government  are  conceived  to  be  divis- 
ible into  political  and  judicial  functions. 

Moses  is  assumed  to  have  at  first  exercised  all  these 
powers  himself.  It  is  his  father-in-law  Jethro  who 
advises  the  subdivision  of  the  judicial  function  into 
major  and  minor.  "  The  great  things "  of  judgment 
he  reserves  to  himself;  the  smaller  matters  he  assigns 


POLITICAL    POWER  9 

to  an  organized  force  of  judges  (Exod.  1818-22)-  Along- 
side of  these  and  to  fulfil  their  decrees  and  execute 
other  public  functions  stand  the  Shoterim  (officers) 
(Numbers  iiig;  Deut.  1618  299  3^28',  Josh,  i^o  833  241). 
The  high  judicial  function  thus  assigned  to  Moses  is 
not  to  be  administered  by  himself  alone.  The  national 
Assembly,  under  his  presidency,  acts  as  the  High  Court : 
"  They  shall  bear  the  burden  with  thee,  that  thou  bear  it 
not  thyself  alone"  (Numbers  1I17).  Nevertheless  his 
presidency  of  this  illustrious  body  is  no  sinecure.  He  is 
to  be  the  shepherd  to  keep  them  in  order   (Numbers 

2716.17). 

That  cases  of  great  importance  were  presented  for 
their  judgment  was  inevitable.  The  claim  of  Zelophe- 
had's  daughters  involved  intertribal  relations,  land  laws, 
and  inheritance  laws,  three  constitutional  questions  of  the 
first  order.  The  resolutions  were :  ( i )  That  where  there 
were  no  sons,  daughters  would  inherit  (Numbers  27s). 
(2)  In  default  of  both  sons  and  daughters,  brothers 
shall  inherit  (279).  (3)  In  default  of  sons,  daughters 
and  brothers,  the  father's  brothers  shall  inherit  (2710). 
(4)  In  default  of  all  these  then  the  kinsman  that  is 
next  to  him  of  his  mishpachah  (family)  shall  inherit 
(2711).  (5)  When  daughters  inherit  they  may  not 
marry  outside  their  tribe  lest  the  equilibrium  of  tribal 
landownership  be  disturbed   (Numbers  360.7). 

Questions  like  these  can  be  properly  treated  only  by 
tribunals  of  the  most  eminent  rank,  and  the  presence 
of  such  a  body  in  a  country  is  evidence  that  the  king 
is  a  constitutional  monarch,  of  limited  and  defined 
powers,  and  that  the  Parliamentary  Court  alongside  of 
him  is  to  be  reckoned  with  as  one  of  the  great  estates 
of  the  realm. 

The  law  of  Exod.  2237  recognizes  this  position: 
"  Thou  shalt  not  revile  the  Elohim,  nor  curse  the  Nasi." 
Either  is  leze  majesty. 


10  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

This  conclusion  is  moreover  supported  by  direct  evi- 
dence. Deut.  i7i4-2o  is  a  little  law-code  defining  the 
selection,  the  qualifications  and  the  duties  of  the  king. 
The  selection  is  to  be  by  the  Lord  and  the  enthronement 
by  the  nation.  The  qualifications  are  that  he  must  be 
an  Israelite,  not  a  foreigner.  The  duties  are  both 
affirmative  and  negative.  He  shall  write  for  himself  a 
copy  of  the  law,  shall  read  in  it  every  day,  and  shall 
observe  it  in  its  entirety.  He  is  not  to  multiply  horses 
nor  to  send  people  to  Egypt  for  procuring  horses,  nor 
multiply  wives,  nor  greatly  multiply  silver  and  gold,  nor 
shall  his  heart  be  lifted  up  above  his  brethren. 

These  provisions  are  clearly  what  we  call  "constitu- 
tional." Not  only  must  the  king's  selection  be  ratified 
by  the  nation,  but  express  limitations  are  placed  on  his 
power. 

An  indirect  testimony  to  the  existence  of  such  a  con- 
stitutional provision  is  the  travesty  of  king's  law  con- 
tained in  I  Sam.  Sn-ig.  It  is  a  bitter  arraignment  of 
king's  practices  as  being  violative  of  the  constitution, 
and  reminds  us  of  similar  diatribes  in  modern  free 
states. 

The  political  functions  of  the  Edah  were  of  equal 
gravity  with  its  judicial  powers.  When  the  spies  made 
their  report  concerning  the  prospects  of  conquering 
Canaan,  it  was  to  the  Edah  that  it  was  addressed,  and 
that  body  was  so  terrified  that  it  fell  into  a  panic  and 
shouted  for  the  death  of  Joshua  and  Caleb  who  favored 
an  immediate  invasion  of  the  coveted  country.  And 
Moses,  whose  esteem  for  Joshua  and  Caleb  was  of  the 
highest,  was  unable  to  procure  the  adoption  of  their 
views.  The  Edah  prevailed  and  its  policy  of  unwisdom 
and  cowardice  postponed  the  conquest  for  a  generation. 

Two  instances  or  three  of  great  diplomatic  questions 
also  arose.  The  first  was  the  request  to  the  king  of 
Edom  for  passage  through  his  country.     The  account 


POLITICAL    POWER  11 

(Numbers  2014-21)  ^o^s  not  enable  us  to  say  that  the 
Edah  was  consulted.  Moses  alone  is  mentioned,  unless 
indeed  the  term  Bene  Israel  in  the  19th  verse  means  the 
Assembly. 

At  all  events  the  negotiations  indicate  a  highly 
developed  international  law  and  a  sophisticated  and 
courteous  diplomatic  language. 

When  Israel  prefers  the  same  request  to  Sihon,  the 
Amorite  king,  the  demand  for  passage  is  not  by  Moses 
but  by  Israel  (Numbers  2I21-25). 

When  the  Gibeonites  made  a  league  with  the  con- 
querors, Joshua  and  the  Assembly  (here  called  Ish- 
Yisrael)  acted  together.  Joshua  pronounced  the  assent 
of  Israel,  and  the  princes  (Nesiim)  of  the  Edah  made 
oath  thereto  (Josh.  93-16) •  It  turned  out  that  the  wily 
Gibeonites  had  deceived  Joshua  and  the  princes.  Never- 
theless the  Edah,  though  it  murmured  (913),  abided  by 
their  act. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  political  act  recorded  of 
the  Assembly  was  its  resolution  to  declare  war  against 
the  two  and  a  half  East-Jordanic  tribes  that  had  just 
helped  them  conquer  the  Westland  (Josh.  2210-34). 

The  returning  braves,  it  seems,  built  an  altar  on  the 
border  of  their  country,  and  the  rumor  reached  the 
Edah  that  they  had  determined  to  set  up  a  worship  of 
their  own  and  to  abandon  the  national  God.  The  As- 
sembly met  at  Shiloh  and  prepared  for  war.  Phineas 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Nesiim  (there  were  but 
ten  left)  as  a  delegation  bearing  an  ultimatum.  The 
imputed  rebellion  was  denied,  the  altar  explained  away, 
and  peace  was  preserved. 


12  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

B 

THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

It  is  not  however  my  purpose  to  dilate  upon  the  Edah 
of  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  well-known  to  all  Bible 
students.  Our  present  interest  lies  in  the  fact  that 
many  scholars  believe  that  with  the  death  of  Joshua, 
the  Edah  came  to  an  end,  that  the  parliament  as  an 
institution  perished  and  that  no  further  traces  of  it  can 
be  found  until  we  come  to  the  Gerusia,  about  200  B.  C, 
an  institution  which  was  succeeded  by  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue and  that  again  by  the  Sanhedrin.  There  is 
much  conflict  of  opinion  on  the  composition  and  func- 
tion of  these  bodies,  but  the  agreement  seems  general, 
that  from  the  time  of  the  Judges  to  the  reign  of  Antio- 
chus  the  Great,  a  period  of  about  1200  years,  there  is 
no  real  evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  a  great  Council 
in  Israel. 

From  this  view  I  emphatically  dissent,  because  the 
phenomena  of  Israel's  history  and  development  cannot 
be  explained  by  it.  The  tendency  of  the  historians  of 
the  Jewish  nation  has  been  to  view  the  Priests  and 
Prophets  as  the  efficient  agencies  of  Hebrew  govern- 
ment, the  former  having  charge  of  the  ceremonial  in- 
stitutions, and  the  latter  being  the  great  preachers  of 
righteousness.  Incidentally  kings  and  a  few  generals 
are  introduced,  the  kings  being  either  good  or  bad. 
When  good,  they  listen  to  the  Priests  and  the  Prophets; 
when  bad,  they  do  not.  The  inadequacy  of  such  a  view 
is  plain  from  the  impossibility  of  realizing  how  a  people, 
developing  no  other  institutions  than  these,  can,  after 
three  thousand  years  and  more,  still  continue  to  exist  as 
an  integral  body.  The  kings,  the  Priests  and  the 
Prophets  have  all  departed,  but  the  people  survive;  and 
this  survival  during  the  last  two  thousand  years  must, 


POLITICAL    POWER  13 

according  to  all  rational  laws  of  history,  be  due  to  the 
same  causes  and  impulses  which  inspired  the  nation  dur- 
ing the  thousand  years  before.  If,  then,  the  Jewish 
nation  was  created  and  developed,  not  by  Priests  and 
not  by  Prophets,  where  did  the  source  of  development 
lie  ?  The  answer  is  unmistakable :  it  was  in  the  Hebrew 
nation  itself.  To  say  that  a  sojourn  of  seventy  years 
in  Babylonia  totally  changed  the  character  of  the 
nation,  and  created  that  deathless  national  life  which 
has  surpassed  in  vigor  all  the  empires  and  kingdoms 
of  that  day,  is  to  give  an  explanation  which  does  not 
explain,  and  which  it  is  not  too  harsh  to  characterize 
as  superficial.  If  merely  rubbing  shoulders  for  an 
instant  of  time  with  Babylonian  civilization  transfused 
so  much  of  the  spirit  of  the  latter  into  the  Jewish 
nation  that  it  implanted  within  its  soul  the  seeds  of 
immortality,  one  wonders  why  the  Babylonians  and  the 
Assyrians,  who  must  have  kept  the  bulk  of  that  spirit 
of  which  a  spark  only  descended  upon  Israel,  fell  within 
a  short  time  thereafter  into  utter  nothingness.  It  is 
for  this  reason,  too,  that  as  regards  historical  estimates, 
the  learned  and  meritorious  works  which  describe 
Israel's  indebtedness  to  Babylonian  and  Egyptian 
sources,  cannot  have  controlling  value.  Tools  them- 
selves are  inanimate  things;  behind  their  achievements 
lies  the  spirit  of  the  worker. 

If,  therefore,  it  was  the  spirit  of  Israel  which  created 
Judaism,  historical  science  demands  that  the  operation  of 
that  spirit  prior  to  the  creation  of  Judaism  be  investi- 
gated and,  if  possible,  ascertained;  and  if  the  spirit 
which  created  the  religion  of  Judaism  is  thus  of  surpass- 
ing interest,  it  is  no  more  so  than  the  spirit  which  created 
its  governmental  institutions.  The  historians  point  to 
Ezekiel,  to  Ezra  and  to  Nehemiah,  all  children  of  their 
people,  in  whose  every  nerve  and  fiber  its  spirit  was 
embedded. 


14  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

The  fact  that  the  writing  Prophets  were  long  preceded 
by  a  prophetic  order  or  guild,  which  had  a  distinct 
organization  and  specific  functions,  is  too  frequently  over- 
looked; and  the  still  more  significant  fact  that  the  only 
people  whom  we  call  Prophets,  namely,  the  great  writing 
Prophets,  either  were  never  members  of  that  guild,  or 
had  severed  their  connection  with  it,  and  were  denouncing 
it  as  pernicious,  by  applying  to  its  members  the  oppro- 
brious name  of  "False  Prophets."  Like  all  orders  or 
guilds,  the  official  Prophets  constituted  a  grade  of  aristoc- 
racy, and  revolt  against  this  caste  was  the  revolt  of  the 
democracy.  The  great  Tribunes  of  the  people  were 
therefore  the  writing  Prophets,  who  denounced  all  the 
aristocratic  powers  of  the  state  as  being  exercised  without 
due  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  mass  of  men  as  men.  If, 
then,  in  Amos  and  Hosea,  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  we 
recognize  the  orators  of  the  people  against  the  privileged 
classes  and  in  favor  of  right  and  justice  to  all  men,  it 
behooves  us  to  re-examine  our  opinions  on  many  subjects, 
and  to  determine  whether  we  have  not  often  viewed  as 
an  indictment  of  all  Israel,  charges  specifically  brought 
by  the  great  Prophets  of  Israel,  on  behalf  of  the  whole 
people. of  Israel,  against  the  aristocratic  classes. 

The  task  is  colossal,  but  men  should  be  found  who  will 
address  themselves  to  it  in  the  proper  spirit.  As  for 
myself,  I  propose  to  confine  this  lecture  to  a  mere  corner 
of  the  work. 

In  point  of  time  I  shall  in  the  main  not  go  further  back 
than  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  B.  C,  to  the  days  of 
Ahab;  and  I  shall  not  come  down  later  than  the  time  of 
Jeremiah,  say  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  thereafter.  I 
shall  endeavor  to  demonstrate  that  within  this  period 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  the  opinion  that 
alongside  of  King  and  Priest  and  Prophet,  there  was  a 
great  directive,  if  not  controlling,  influence  in  the  state, 
closely  analogous  to  what  we  call  Parliament;  that  this 


POLITICAL    POWER  15 

body  had  executive,  or  political,  and  high  judicial  powers, 
just  as  has  the  Parliament  of  England.  The  limitation 
of  my  investigation  must,  hov^ever,  not  be  misconstrued. 
On  general  principles  and  from  the  specific  evidence  ob- 
tainable from  the  Biblical  books,  it  can  be  shown  that 
such  an  institution  existed  in  embryo  before  the  unifica- 
tion of  the  state  under  David;  that  it  became  fully  de- 
veloped in  the  early  days  of  the  kingdom;  that  it  never 
ceased  to  exist  until  the  downfall  of  the  monarchy,  and 
that  in  one  form  or  another  it  was  preserved  as  an  active 
force  in  Babylon  during  the  captivity  and  in  Palestine 
after  the  return.  To  attempt  to  work  out  this  subject 
completely  would  require  not  a  lecture,  but  a  book,  and 
I  shall  therefore  confine  myself  this  evening  to  the  nar- 
row field  which  I  have  deliberately  chosen.  The  institu- 
tion described  in  the  Pentateuch  as  the  Edah,  and  which 
I  have  characterized  as  a  great  national  Council,  is 
known  in  the  period  that  I  am  now  investigating  as  the 
Am  ha-aretz. 

The  term  Am  ha-aretz  has  had  a  chequered  career. 
In  its  origin  it  probably  meant  the  people  of  a  foreign 
land.  Joshua  and  Caleb  use  it  in  this  sense  in  Numbers 
149  in  making  the  minority  report  of  the  Commission  to 
investigate  the  availability  of  Palestine  for  an  Israelitish 
state.  In  the  course  of  the  thousands  of  years  since,  it 
has  come  to  mean  merely  an  ignorant  person,  a  boor,  and 
Zangwill  has  introduced  this  phase  of  its  meaning  into 
English  literature  in  the  quaint  form  of  "man  of  the 
earth." 

Between  these  two  extremes  so  far  apart,  the  term  has 
had  other  meanings,  not  a  few.  The  student  who  has  a 
hankering  to  look  up  the  subject  may  turn  to  Rothstein's 
Jiiden  iind  Samaritaner  (Leipzig,  1908)  and  Buchler's 
Der  Galildische  Am  ha-arets  (Vienna,  1906).  In  these 
learned  works  much  will  be  found  concerning  the  mean- 


16  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

ing  of  the  term  after  the  Return  from  Babylon  and 
down  to  the  early  centuries  of  the  common  era. 

The  term  occurs  forty-nine  times  in  Scripture.  In 
forty- two  of  these  instances  it  means  neither  the  nation, 
nor  a  heretical  section  of  it,  nor  an  individual  boor,  but 
is  simply  a  technical  term  of  Hebrew  Politics  and  signifies 
what  we  would  call  "the  Parliament." 

The  passages  are  the  following   : 

Genesis  237.12.13. 

Leviticus  427  2O2.4. 

2    Kings    Iii4.i8.i9.20    155    1615    2I24.24   2330.35    24i4 

253. 19. 19' 

Jeremiah  iig  34i9  372  442i  526.25.25. 

Ezekiel  727  ^^19  2239  3913  45i6.22  463.9. 

Job  1224. 

2  Chronicles  2313.20.21  2621  3325.25. 

That  all  the  particular  duties  devolving  on  this  ancient 
Parliament  can  at  this  distance  of  time  be  clearly  ascer- 
tained is  too  much  to  hope  for.  That  these  duties  were 
partly  political  and  partly  judicial  is,  however,  clear.  In 
speaking  of  such  an  institution  we  must  be  careful  not  to 
confound  modern  notions  with  ancient  ideas.  If  we  are 
apt  to  believe  that  representation  can  be  secured  in  but 
one  way,  namely,  by  the  ballots  of  a  portion  of  the 
population,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  ancient 
Hebrews  took  the  same  view.  They  had  kings,  princes, 
priests  and  nobles,  and  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  indi- 
viduals selected  from  among  the  most  important  were 
looked  upon  as  the  men  proper  to  sit  in  the  Am  ha-aretz. 

The  texts  to  which  I  have  referred  may,  as  regards 
their  content,  be  divided  into  groups  as  follows : 
( I )  Those  which  represent  the  Am  ha-aretz  as  exercising 
political  functions,  especially  the  making  and  unmaking 
of  kings,  and  (2)  those  which  represent  it  as  the  High 
Court  of  the  nation. 


POLITICAL    POWER  17 


THE  AM  HA-ARETZ  OF  THE  HITTITES 

Before  entering  into  the  dry  details  concerning  the 
Hebrew  Am  ha-aretz  it  may  be  worth  our  while  to  look 
in  on  a  session  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  of  another  nation — 
one  that  held  sway  in  Palestine  long  before  our  ancestors 
took  possession.  The  great  Hittite  empire  of  the  North 
seems  to  have  had  an  offshoot  in  the  South,  where  a 
Southern  Hittite  League  probably  had  its  capital  in  the 
city  of  Hebron,  in  which  Abraham  long  sojourned. 
From  this  point  he  had  led  the  campaign  against  Kedor- 
Laomer  the  Elamite  kmg,  over  whom  he  and  his  con- 
federate chiefs  of  the  Hebron  district  triumphed. 
Though  his  relations  with  the  Hittites  are  of  the  closest 
yet  is  he  an  alien.  He  may  levy  war  with  the  assent 
and  co-operation  of  the  League,  but  he  may  not  own  land 
absolutely.  He  is  looked  on  as  a  mighty  prince,  as  a 
powerful  ally  of  the  Hittite  government,  but  not  as  a 
member  of  it. 

When  Sarah  died  at  Hebron  it  was  necessary  to  find 
a  fitting  burial-place,  one  that  should  forever  remain  a 
possession  of  the  family.  Under  the  general  law  such 
ownership  {ahiizali,  niikneh)  was  impossible,  without  the 
assent  of  the  national  Parliament,  the  Hittite  Am  ha- 
aretz.  Its  Pre-Sident,  "he  who  sits  in  the  middle" 
(Gen.  23 iq)  was  Ephron  the  son  of  Zohar.  Its  members 
still  bore  the  ancient  name  of  members  of  a  city  Am 
out  of  which  the  national  Am  had  been  developed: 
"  Comers  to  the  city  gate"  (Gen.  2310. is) »  a  name  which 
survived  the  institution  to  which  it  originally  belonged. 

To  this  body  Abraham  addresses  himself. 

The  Assembly  is  in  session.  Abraham  is  admitted. 
With  polite  deprecation  he  describes  his  alienage  and  asks 
that  out  of  their  grace  he  may  be  permitted  to  acquire  a 


18  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

burying-place  absolutely.  "They,"  that  is,  the  Presi- 
dent, replies  in  courtly  phrase,  gently  disavowing  the  term 
applied  by  Abraham  to  himself,  avouches  him  a  mighty 
Prince,  and  begs  him  to  make  free  choice  of  any  of  their 
sepulchres. 

Abraham,  who  had  in  the  meanwhile  been  seated, 
bowed  to  the  Am  ha-aretz  and  indirectly  addressed 
Ephron  by  saying  to  the  Assembly :  "  Intreat  for  me  to 
Ephron  the  son  of  Zohar,  that  he  may  for  full  value 
grant  me  the  cave  of  Machpelah." 

And  then  courteous  diplomatic  fencing.  Ephron  says : 
"  Nay,  my  lord,  freely  in  this  presence  do  I  give  thee  the 
field  with  the  cave.  Bury  thy  dead!"  Abraham  bows 
to  the  Am  ha-aretz  and  speaks :  "  But  hear  me,  as  a  gift 
I  cannot  take  it.  Accept  its  value  that  I  may  bury  my 
dead  therein."  And  then  with  polite  flourishes  Ephron 
fixes  the  value  in  money  current  with  the  merchant,  or 
as  we  should  say,  legal  tender.  To  admit  an  alien  to 
this  kind  of  ownership,  it  is  deemed  necessary  that 
grantor  and  grantee  appear  before  the  Am  ha-aretz,  that 
the  price  be  fixed,  the  land  minutely  described,  and  the 
consideration  paid,  all  publicly  in  the  hearing  and  view 
of  the  Am  ha-aretz. 

During  the  Jewish  monarchy,  an  ordinary  sale  of  land 
would,  of  course,  have  been  effected  before  the  city  Am, 
"the  Yoshebim  in  the  court  of  the  prison"  (Jer.  327-15). 
The  case  of  Abraham,  however,  was  something  more 
than  a  mere  local  sale  of  land.  It  was  a  diplomatic 
negotiation  between  high  contracting  parties  and  the  tone 
in  which  the  affair  was  conducted  may  serve  to  give  us 
an  idea  of  the  courtly  etiquette  which  attended  the  recep- 
tion of  foreign  ambassadors  at  Jerusalem  by  the  Am 
ha-aretz  in  session. 


POLITICAL    POWER  19 

D 

THE   DOWNFALL   OF  ATHALIAH 

Our  digression  may  have  prepared  us  the  better  for 
appreciating  the  high  poHtical  function  of  the  Jewish  Am 
ha-aretz  as  king-maker  and  king-breaker. 

The  classical  example  occurs  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century  B.  C.  The  record  is  in  2  Kings  1 1  and  its 
doublet  in  2  Chronicles  23. 

Athaliah,  princess  of  Israel,  the  daughter  of  Ahab  and 
Jezebel,  married  Jehoram,  king  of  Judah.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  youngest  son  Ahaziah  who,  dying  soon 
after,  Athaliah  the  cjueen-mother  ascended  the  throne, 
having  first  caused  the  assassination  of  the  surviving 
members  of  the  Davidic  house  in  Jerusalem.  Only  the 
baby-prince  Joash  was  saved.  Until  the  age  of  seven 
he  was  concealed  by  his  uncle  the  high-priest  Jehoiada, 
and  then  in  881  the  latter  organized  a  revolt  in  which 
Athaliah  lost  her  life,  the  young  prince  Joash  was  en- 
throned, and  Jehoiada  became  regent. 

The  picture  presented  by  this  narrative  is  quite  clear. 
Athaliah  the  queen-mother  has  established  Baal-worship. 
A  revolt  is  led  by  the  priest  Jehoiada,  who  confides  in 
and  is  supported  by  the  military  chiefs  of  Temple  Hill 
and  by  the  Am  ha-aretz.  Their  object  is  to  overthrow 
Athaliah  and  the  Baal-worship,  to  enthrone  Joash  the 
rightful  heir,  and  to  establish  the  worship  of  the  God 
of  Israel. 

A  movement  of  this  character  against  a  powerful 
personality  like  Athaliah  calls  for  a  leader  of  more  than 
ordinary  qualities.  Such  a  one  was  Jehoiada,  the  Priest, 
called  also  the  High  Priest  (2  Kings  I2ii).  He  had 
married  the  princess  Jehosheba,  the  aunt  of  the  little 
prince  Joash,  and  had  hidden  the  latter  during  the  six 
years  of  Athaliah's  usurpation.     At  his  death  he  was 


20  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

buried  in  the  Tombs  of  the  Kings  (2  Chron.  2415. i^),  and 
nearly  three  hundred  years  later  he  was  spoken  of  as 
the  primate  and  type  of  the  Jerusalem  priesthood  (Jer. 

2926). 

As  might  have  been  expected  from  such  a  man,  the 
revolution  was  well-planned  and  vigorously  executed. 
The  Am  ha-aretz  and  the  garrison  were  ready ;  the  latter 
under  the  leadership  of  their  captains,  the  former  prob- 
ably under  the  leadership  of  Jehoiada  himself.  While  his 
relation  to  the  Am  ha-aretz  is  not  directly  indicated,  there 
is  a  significant  remark  in  2  Chron.  2420  which  bears  on 
the  subject.  There  we  are  told  that  Zechariah  the  son 
of  Jehoiada  stood  above  the  Am  {vaya'amod  me'al 
la' am).  If  this  means,  as  it  probably  does,  that  the 
high-priest  or  the  Cohen  ha-rosh  in  those  days  presided 
over  the  Am,  was  indeed  the  Cohen  of  the  Am,  the  posi- 
tion becomes  clear.  The  Am  by  its  President  Jehoiada, 
and  the  garrison  represented  by  the  military  commanders, 
agreed  to  dethrone  the  usurper  and  to  enthrone  the  lawful 
king. 

The  method  of  procedure  was  agreed  on.  A  strong 
force  was  to  surround  the  little  king  and  to  defend  the 
Temple  enclosure,  and  death  was  denounced  as  the 
penalty  for  any  intrusion  during  the  progress  of  the 
revolution.  The  preparations  completed,  the  king  was 
crowned  and  anointed  amid  shouts  of  "God  save  the 
king !  "  Athaliah  heard  the  noise  "  of  the  guard  and  of 
the  Am,"  came  to  the  Temple,  saw  what  was  going  on, 
saw  the  Am  ha-aretz  rejoicing,  rent  her  clothes  and 
shouted  "  Treason,  treason ! "  Rushing  to  reach  the 
Palace,  she  was  slain  as  soon  as  she  had  passed  out  of 
the  Temple  enclosure.  Then  Jehoiada  made  a  herith  be- 
tween the  Lord,  the  king  and  the  Am  ha-aretz ;  the  forces 
entered  the  house  of  Ba'al,  broke  it  down  and  slew  the 
Baal-priest  Mattan,  after  which  Jehoiada  with  the  mili- 
tary and  the  Am  ha-aretz  brought  the  king  down  from 


Scale   of  Yards 


a,  The  House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon. 
bf  Threshold. 

c,  Hall  of  Pillars. 

d,  The  Throne  Hall. 

e,  The  ''Great"  or  Outer  Court. 
/,  The  King's  House. 

g,  The  "Other"  or  "Middle"  Court. 
h,  House  of  Pharaoh's  Daughter. 
/,  The  Temple. 


n, 


Altar  of  Burnt  Offering. 

The  Upper  Court  of  C.  of  the  House  of  Yahweh. 

Ascents  to  Palace  and  Temple. 

Wall  of  present  Haram-esh-Sherif. 

Barracks  of  the  Ratzim. 

Beth  ha- Am  (Parliament  House). 

Gate  Sur. 

Palace  Gate. 

Ratzim  or  Barracks  Gate. 


POLITICAL    POWER  21 

the  Temple  to  the  throne-room  of  the  Palace  and  en- 
throned him.  The  Am  ha-aretz  rejoiced,  and  "the  city 
was  in  quiet"   (verse  20). 

Dealing  as  we  are  with  Jerusalem,  the  metropolis,  we 
cannot  avoid  the  difficulty  which  instantly  presents  itself. 
If  Am  ha-aretz  really  meant  "the  people  of  the  land"  as 
the  authorized  version  has  it,  how  is  it  that  this  great 
city  was  overrun  by  a  mob  of  country-folk,  who  had  not 
only  entered  the  town  by  its  gates,  but  were  practically 
entrenched  within  the  walls  of  its  lofty  citadel?  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  Am  ha-aretz,  at  that  early  date,  nine  cen- 
turies before  the  Common  Era,  meant  the  city  rabble, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  20th  verse  which  tells  us  that 
the  city  remained  quiet? 

Either  supposition  is  too  improbable  to  be  reasonably 
entertained.  When  the  Bible  speaks  of  city  dwellers  it 
has  a  distinct  name  for  them,  anshe  ha'ir  (men  of  the 
city) .  This  expression  is  neither  isolated  nor  casual.  It 
occurs  in  Genesis,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings. 
It  is  besides  unthinkable,  that  with  a  ruler  of  the  ability 
of  Athaliah,  a  mob  whether  of  country  or  city  folk  could 
have  been  gathered  on  Temple  Hill  without  her  knowl- 
edge. 

If.  however,  the  Am  ha-aretz  means  the  Great  Council, 
this  difficulty  disappears.  The  presence  of  the  members 
of  this  body  on  Temple  Hill  was  required  for  the  per- 
formance of  its  functions  and  therefore  caused  no  alarm. 
To  understand  the  military  dispositions  we  must  now 
study  the  ground. 

THE  SCENE  OF  THE  REVOLUTION 

If  we  take  Stade's  map  of  Solomon's  Temple  and  its 
surroundings  (Geschichte,  vol.  i,  p.  315;  Smith's  Jeru- 
salem, vol.  2,  p.  59)  and  proceed  from  North  to  South 
we  find  first  at  a  height  of  2430  feet  above  the  level  of 


22  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

the  Mediterranean,  the  Temple  itself,  surrounded  by 
courts  and  enclosed  by  walls.  Southeast  of  it  and  South 
of  the  southern  wall  of  the  Temple  enclosure  was  a 
group  of  buildings  comprising  the  king's  house  and  at- 
tached to  it  on  the  northwest  the  Palace  of  Pharaoh's 
daughter.  These  stood  on  ground  lo  feet  below  the 
Temple  level  and  were  also  surrounded  by  courts  and 
walls.  To  the  southeast  of  this  group  and  south  of  its 
southern  wall  was  the  Throne  Hall,  on  the  southerly  side 
of  which  rose  the  Hall  of  Pillars.  At  the  north  end  this 
group  was  at  an  elevation  of  2420  feet  and  sloped  down- 
wards towards  the  building  immediately  to  the  south, 
called  the  House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon,  the  north 
end  of  which  was  at  2410  feet  and  the  south  at  2400 
feet.  This  group  composed  of  the  Throne  Hall,  the 
Hall  of  Pillars  and  the  House  of  the  Forest  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  great  court  enclosed  by  walls.  From  the 
south  there  was  an  ascent  which  permitted  entry  into  this 
court  by  a  gate  in  the  south  wall.  From  this  court  there 
was  on  the  east  a  way  up  to  the  Temple  Court  through 
a  gate  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  south  wall  of  the  Temple 
enclosure.  Stade  and  Smith  give  us  no  clear  conception 
of  the  situation  as  it  was  at  the  time  of  Athaliah's  over- 
throw. The  account  as  given  in  2  Kings  11,  must  be 
used  to  supplement  their  account.  In  the  first  place  there 
were  three  gates  in  the  south  wall  of  the  Temple  en- 
closure: the  gate  Stir  (v.  6),  the  gate  of  the  guards 
{Ratzim)  (v.  6),  and  the  palace  gate  (v.  16).  If  we 
assume,  as  probably  we  must,  that  the  gate  of  the  guards 
was  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  southern  wall  of  the  Temple 
enclosure,  while  the  gate  of  Sur  was  at  its  western  end, 
it  would  reasonably  follow  that  the  royal  gate  was  at 
or  about  the  middle,  which  is  where  we  would  expect  it 
to  be,  since  Athaliah  chose  it  for  escape  in  her  peril  and 
would  of  course  choose  the  shortest  way  from  the  Temple 
to  the  Palace.     Two  points  still  require  elucidation.     As 


POLITICAL   POWER  23 

we  find  soldiers  on  Temple  Hill  there  must  have  been 
barracks  for  them  somewhere.  These  barracks  are  im- 
plied in  the  expression  "the  gate  behind  the  Ratzim" 
(v.  6),  meaning  of  course  "behind  the  quarters  of  the 
Ratzhn."  Whether  the  Kari  are  another  kind  of  soldiers 
than  the  Ratzim,  need  not  be  examined  here.  Assuming 
all  the  soldiers  of  the  Temple  Hill  to  have  had  one 
building  for  barracks,  the  probability  is  that  this  build- 
ing stood  in  the  outer  court  at  the  southeast  end  thereof, 
immediately  covering  the  Gate  of  the  Guards,  which, 
according  to  the  text,  is  "  behind  "  the  barracks. 

Keeping  the  situation  in  mind  we  find  that  the-  real 
understanding  of  the  narrative  is  impossible  unless  we 
assign  their  true  meaning  to  the  words,  (i)  Am  ha- 
aretz,  (2)  sabbath  (vv.  5,  7,  9),  and  (3)  Beth-Massach 
(v.  6).  The  first  is  of  course  the  parliament.  The 
word  sabbath,  which  seems  so  easy  that  no  one  has  had 
any  doubts  about  it,  gives  no  meaning  at  all  if  we  under- 
stand it  to  be  the  weekly  Sabbath-day.  That  its  signi- 
fication is  "  rest "  we  all  know,  but  then  a  man  may  rest 
on  a  week-day  as  well  as  on  Saturday.  And  yet  the 
translators  speak  of  them  "  that  enter  in  on  the  Sab- 
bath "  and  of  them  "  that  go  forth  on  the  Sabbath." 

Viewing  Sabbath  as  the  seventh  day  what  idea  do  we 
get?  Surely  not  one  of  sanctified  rest,  because  some  of 
the  soldiers  "enter  in"  and  others  "go  forth"  on  that 
day,  processes  which  both  bespeak  unsabbatical  activity. 

The  difiiculty  is  that  a  soldier's  account  of  military 
doings  has  been  read  with  the  eyes  of  ecclesiastics.  The 
word  shabbath  in  the  narrative  does  not  refer  to  the 
seventh  day,  but  to  the  practice  of  relieving  guard.  The 
extraordinary  events  which  were  happening  on  Temple 
Hill  required  the  active  service  of  every  soldier  on  the 
Hill,  and  the  order  was  given  that  there  should  be  no 
relief  on  the  day  in  question,  but  that  every  man  should 
remain  on  duty. 


24  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

A  soldier  cannot  keep  awake  twenty-four  hours  in  the 
day,  nor  stand  guard  all  his  waking  hours;  a  round  of 
duty  must  be  assigned  to  him  which  will  not  overtax  his 
powers.  If,  for  instance,  the  Temple  Guards  were  ordi- 
narily required  to  be  on  active  duty  eight  hours  out  of 
the  twenty-four,  then  it  would  follow  that  at  each  turn 
of  duty  one-third  of  their  number  would  be  relieved, 
that  is,  become  bae  ha-shabbath,  "comers  into  rest," 
while  another  third  would  become  yotzee  ha-shabbath, 
"goers  out  of  rest,"  that  is,  the  relieving  squad.  The 
third  third  would  in  that  event  have  remained  in  barracks, 
or  enjoyed  other  recreation. 

On  this  hypothesis  what  happened  was  as  follows : 

The  third  part,  being  the  relieved  guard,  were  on  this 
occasion  not  allowed  to  enter  the  barracks  but  were 
divided  into  three  detachments,  the  first  of  which  was 
to  watch  the  Palace  (v.  5),  the  second  to  be  at  the  gate 
of  Sur,  and  the  third  to  be  at  the  gate  behind  the  bar- 
racks (v.  6).  This  disposition  was  intended  to  protect 
the  barracks  (beth  massach)    (v.  6). 

The  danger  to  the  barracks  against  which  protection 
was  needed  could  only  have  been  of  one  kind,  namely, 
an  apprehended  attack  by  the  Royal  Guards  (Gibborim). 
It  is  true  that  the  narrative  does  not  distinctly  mention 
the  Royal  Guards,  but  there  are  a  few  hints  of  value. 
When  Athaliah  rushed  to  the  Palace  it  was  probably  for 
the  purpose  of  ordering  out  her  guards  to  crush  the 
revolution.  The  stern  order  to  kill  her  was  intended  to 
prevent  this.  If  the  Beth-massach  was,  as  we  apprehend, 
at  the  southeast  end  of  the  Temple  Court,  then  the  gate 
immediately  south  of  it  must  have  been  at  the  north  end 
of  the  road  which  led  from  the  barracks  of  the  Royal 
Guards  to  the  barracks  of  the  Temple  Guards.  Given 
these  data  we  understand  the  orders  that  were  given. 
The  prime  command  was  to  protect  the  Beth-massach, 
that   is,   to  prevent  the  Royal   Guards   from  breaking 


POLITICAL   POWER  25 

through  the  gate  and  getting  a  foothold  on  the  Temple 
Grounds.  The  details  of  the  order  were  that  a  third 
of  the  relieved  squad  was  to  hold  the  barracks  gate. 
Another  third  was  to  hold  the  western  gate  (Sur)  which 
was  probably  a  public  gate  for  all  visitors  to  the  Temple. 
The  third  third  was  to  watch  the  Palace.  Where  this 
third  was  stationed  we  are  not  told  except  negatively, 
namely,  they  were  not  assigned  to  the  royal  gate  which 
would  have  been  the  most  natural  position.  The  reason 
for  this  disposition  is  obvious  enough.  Athaliah  was  to 
be  lured  into  the  Temple  Grounds,  and  if  the  guards  had 
been  at  the  gate  she  would  have  called  out  her  guards  and 
prepared  for  battle.  We  may  therefore  infer  that  the 
detachment  assigned  to  watch  the  Palace  remained  on 
observation,  or  in  some  convenient  covert  near  by,  ready 
to  move  at  a  moment's  notice. 

These  dispositions  referred  only  to  one-third  of  the 
Temple  guards.  The  other  two-thirds  (shete  ha- 
yadoth),  all  went  forth  out  of  Sabbath,  that  is,  were  on 
duty  (verse  7).  They  were  specially  assigned  to  guard 
the  Temple  and  the  little  king  (ibid.). 

Something  must  now  be  said  to  vindicate  the  transla- 
tion of  massach  by  the  rendering  "barracks."  The 
authorized  version  makes  the  word  massach  an  adverb 
qualifying  the  manner  or  effect  of  the  watch  kept  by  the 
guards.  This  word  in  that  sense  is  superfluous,  since  all 
guard  duty  is  intended  for  protection  and  not  for  dis- 
comfiture. 

In  support  of  our  hypothesis  that  the  Beth  Massach 
is  the  guards'  house,  the  barracks,  there  are  two  facts. 
In  2  Kings  1613  we  are  informed  that  Tiglath-Pileser, 
king  of  Assyria,  having  reduced  King  Ahaz  of  Judah 
to  vassalage,  exercised  authority  on  Temple  Hill  in  Jeru- 
salem, not  only  by  changing  the  pattern  of  the  great 
altar,   but   by   changing   or   somehow   neutralizing   the 


26  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

musack  ha-shabhath  which  had  been  built  "in  the 
Temple*'   (in  the  Temple  enclosure). 

This  word  musach  (variant  in  form  from  our  mas- 
sach),  denotes  a  building  called  musach  ha-shabbath 
or  rest-musach,  an  expression  which  seems  to  identify  it 
with  the  massach  of  chapter  ii,  as  the  place  of  shabbath 
or  rest  for  the  troops. 

There  is  still  another  instance  of  a  similar  word  which 
appears  to  have  a  closely  related  meaning.  In  the  22d 
chapter  of  Isaiah  an  attack  on  Jerusalem  is  foretold.  In 
verse  8  the  masach  of  Judah  (its  shield),  is  uncovered 
and  a  struggle  to  save  the  day  must  be  made  in  the  house 
of  the  forest. 

The  parallelism  between  the  masach  and  the  beth  ha 
ya'ar  is  unmistakable,  and  establishes  either  the  identity 
of  the  two  or  their  nearness  to  each  other  in  purpose  and 
place. 

A  glance  at  the  situation  of  the  house  of  the  forest 
of  Lebanon  shows  that  it  stood  in  the  proper  place  to 
resist  an  attack  from  the  south  and  that  it  was  looked 
on  as  a  fortress  which  protected  the  Palace  and  the 
Temple.  Indeed  i  Kings  1O17  expressly  says  that  it  was 
used  as  an  armory. 

Athaliah  was  not  slain  in  the  Temple  Court  because 
of  an  old  law  (Ki  amar  ha-Cohen)  :  Al  tamuth  beth  Jhvh, 
Thou  shalt  not  kill  in  the  Temple  (2  Kings  1I15).  But 
the  order  had  been  given  to  follow  and  to  kill  her  as 
soon  as  she  had  passed  out  of  the  court  (ibid.).  She 
passed  through  the  middle  gate  on  to  the  driveway  be- 
tween the  wall  and  the  Palace  and  was  slain  before 
reaching  the  Palace. 

Then  Jehoiada  and  the  Am  ha-aretz  accompanied  by 
the  soldiery  brought  the  king  to  the  Palace  and  there 
enthroned  him. 

We  have  thus  a  clear  account  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  as 
a  body  of  men  who  claimed  and  exercised  the  power  of 


POLITICAL    POWER  27 

making  and  unmaking  a  king  in  Israel.  If  this  were  an 
isolated  instance  of  such  activity  the  incident  would  be 
relatively  insignificant,  would  be  merely  a  revolutionary 
movement  and  would  have  little  bearing  on  the  constitu- 
tional law  of  the  Hebrews.  The  case,  however,  is  far 
otherwise. 

E 
THE  AM   HA-ARETZ  AND   THE  LATER  KINGS 

On  the  death  of  Amaziah  the  Am  of  Judah  took 
Azariah  (Uzziah)  his  son  and  made  him  king  to  succeed 
his  father  (2  Kings  1421).  When  Azariah  became  a 
leper,  Jotham  his  son  was  over  the  house  (Shophet  of 
the  Am  ha-aretz)  (2  Kings  155)  and  when  Azariah 
died  Jotham  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead  (2  Kings  157). 

Amon's  ministers  (abadav)  conspired  against  him  and 
slew  the  king  in  his  Palace,  whereupon  the  Am  ha-aretz 
slew  the  conspirators  and  made  his  son  Josiah  king  in 
his  stead  (2  Kings  2123.24)- 

When  Josiah  died  on  the  field  of  Megiddo,  the  Am 
ha-aretz  took  Jehoahaz  his  son,  anointed  him  and  made 
him  king  in  his  father's  stead  (2  Kings  2330).  Pharaoh 
Nechoh  within  three  months  put  an  end  to  his  reign  and 
installed  his  brother  Eliakim  (renamed  Jehoiakim)  in 
his  place.  The  latter  exacted  a  tribute  of  silver  and 
gold  from  the  Am  ha-aretz  to  give  it  to  Pharaoh  (2 
Kings  2335). 

In  the  short  reign  of  Jehoiachin  his  son  and  successor, 
Babylon,  which  claimed  Judah  as  its  vassal,  laid  siege  to 
Jerusalem  and  Nebuchadnezzar  captured  the  king,  the 
royal  family  and  the  royal  retinue,  and  also  carried  away 
the  treasures  of  the  Temple  and  the  Palace.  Of  the  Am 
ha-aretz  only  the  poorer  sort  (dalath)  were  not  carried 
ofT  (2  Kings  2414),  while  the  big  men  (Elim)  of  the 
Arets  shared  the  king's  captivity  (2415  Ezek.  1713). 

Nebuchadnezzar  then  placed  on  the  throne  Jehoiachin's 

3 


28  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

uncle  Mattaniah  (renamed  Zedekiah).  In  the  ninth 
year  of  his  reign,  his  turn  came  and  Jerusalem  was  again 
besieged  by  Babylon,  the  siege  lasting  two  years.  On 
the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month  the  famine  prevailed 
in  the  city  and  there  was  no  bread  even  for  the  Am 
ha-aretz  (2  Kings  253).  The  garrison  fled,  the  king  was 
captured,  his  troops  scattered  and  he  himself  blinded 
and  carried  to  Babylon. 

The  Babylonian  general  Nebuzaradan  burnt  the 
Temple  and  the  parliament  house  (Beth  ha-am)  and 
broke  down  the  city  walls  (Jer.  393)  •  Among  others 
he  captured  the  Sar  ha-tzabah,  the  Grand  Marshal  of  the 
Am  ha-aretz,  and  sixty  members  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  who 
had  remained  in  the  city  (2  Kings  2519)  and  took  them 
to  Riblah  where  they  were,  by  order  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
slain. 

On  the  downfall  of  the  monarchy,  the  king  of  Babylon 
appears  to  have  intended  to  give  Judea  a  more  popular 
form  of  government.  Having  made  way  with  the  Elim 
or  magnates  of  the  Am  ha-aretz,  he  invested  the  Dallim 
(the  poor  members)  with  the  powers  of  that  body  and 
gave  them  vineyards  and  fields  (which  doubtless  had 
belonged  to  the  patrician  section,  Jer.  39io)-  He  in- 
stalled Gedaliah  as  viceroy  (2  Kings  2502),  but  the 
latter  was  soon  slain  by  the  court  party  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Ishmael  "of  the  seed  royal"  (2525). 

In  the  meanwhile  the  conqueror  had  freed  Jeremiah, 
placed  him  under  the  protection  of  Gedaliah  and  selected 
him  for  President  of  the  newly  organized  Am  (Vaye- 
sheb  betoch  ha'am)  (Jer.  3914  4O5.6). 

With  the  death  of  Gedaliah  came  the  ill-starred  flight 
into  Egypt  whither  Jeremiah  himself  was  carried,  and 
the  hope  of  restoring  the  Davidic  dynasty  dwindled. 

The  mass  of  evidence  here  collated  compels  the  aban- 
donment of  the  notion  that  the  Am  ha-aretz  were  merely 
the    rabble.      Their    proceedings    from    the    time    that 


POLITICAL   POWER  29 

Jehoiada  led  them  into  revolt  against  Athaliah  have  not 
the  faintest  resemblance  to  the  proceedings  of  a  mob; 
while  they  are  quite  consistent  with  the  sagacious  action 
of  a  great  national  Council,  which  had  its  meeting  place 
(Beth  ha-'am)  on  Temple  Hill,  and  which  was  in  regular 
and  orderly  session  at  the  time.  Otherwise,  the  ascent 
of  the  hill  by  disorderly  and  unexpected  crowds  would 
have  inevitably  attracted  the  attention  of  Athaliah,  her 
courtiers,  servants,  and  soldiers.  Moreover,  we  are  ex- 
pressly told  that  when  all  the  proceedings  became  known, 
the  city  (i.  e.,  the  bulk  of  the  population)  remained 
quiet.  Then  we  must  additionally  take  into  account  the 
repeated  instances  subsequently  recorded  in  which  the 
Am  ha-aretz  elected  a  king.  That  it  was  not  the  rabble 
who  did  this  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Pharaoh 
Nechoh  exacted  a  tribute  of  silver  and  gold  from  the 
Am  ha-aretz;  that  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  off  a  section 
of  the  Am  ha-aretz  to  share  Jehoiachin's  captivity  at 
Babylon;  that  at  the  final  catastrophe  great  of^cers  of 
the  Am  ha-aretz  and  sixty  members  of  it  were  seized 
and  sentenced  to  death;  and  last,  but  not  least,  that  the 
Parliament  house  itself  was  destroyed.  Where  there  is 
a  Parliament  house  there  is  also  a  Parliament. 

It  is  true  that  the  words  Beth  ha-Am  have  heretofore 
not  been  so  translated,  but  then  on  the  other  hand  it  is 
equally  true  that  no  intelligible  meaning  has  ever  been 
assigned  to  them. 

F 

THE  AM  HA-ARETZ  ELECTS  SAUL 

As  a  mere  illustration  of  the  antiquity  of  this  power  of 
a  national  Council  to  elect  a  king,  I  digress  a  little  from 
my  original  purpose,  in  order  to  call  to  your  minds  the 
circumstances  of  the  election  of  the  very  first  king  of 
Israel — Saul. 

Samuel  spoke  to  Saul  of  Israel's  desire  to  have  a  king 


30  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

and  of  the  fact  that  he  was  the  favorite;  whereupon  he 
took  Saul  with  his  servant,  brought  them  into  the  meet- 
ing-hall (Lishcah)  and  assigned  them  places  in  the  As- 
sembly of  the  delegates  (Rosh  ha-Keruim)  who  were 
thirty  in  number.  And  Samuel  said  to  the  Master  of 
Ceremonies  (Tabbach)  : 

"Bring  out  the  portion  which  I  gave  thee: 
Of  which  I  said  unto  thee : 
Set  it  by  thee ! " 

And  the  Tabbach  raised  the  shoulder  and  lifted  it  up 
and  set  it  before  Saul,  saying  these  words : 

"Behold  the  nishar  (what  is  left),  set  it  before  thee, 
eat!  For  to  this  Assembly  (mo'ed)  hath  it  been  kept 
for  thee  since  it  was  opened,  by  the  words  Ha'am 
Karathi  (I  have  convoked  the  Am)  "   (i  Sam.  922-24)- 

And  Samuel  said  to  the  Am :  Behold  him  whom  the 
Lord  hath  chosen,  for  there  is  none  like  him  in  the  whole 
Am.  And  the  whole  Am  shouted  "  God  save  the  king !  " 
Then  Samuel  told  the  Am  the  law  (mishpat)  of  royalty 
and  wrote  it  in  a  book,  and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord. 

And  Samuel  dismissed  the  Am  each  to  his  home  (i 
Sam.  1O24.25). 

A  superficial  reading  of  the  authorized  version  con- 
veys the  impression  that  Samuel  gave  a  dinner  to  which 
he  invited  thirty  guests  and  Saul  with  his  servant  having 
casually  arrived,  the  prophet  hospitably  invited  him  to 
share  in  the  festivity. 

Our  interpretation  is  in  direct  opposition  to  this  view. 
Samuel  having  been  divinely  instructed  that  Saul  was 
the  proper  man  for  king,  convoked  a  meeting  of  the  Am 
so  that  in  their  presence  the  Divine  choice  might  be 
made  known.  He  relied  on  the  interposition  of  Heaven 
to  send  the  young  man  to  the  city  on  the  day  appointed 
for  the  Assembly. 


POLITICAL    POWER  31 

The  variance  between  the  two  interpretations  is  pro- 
duced by  the  differing  translation  of  five  words  in  the 
narrative :  Lishcah,  Rosh,  Keruim,  Tabbach  and  ha- Am. 

Lishcah  means  a  pubHc  hall  for  official  meetings  in 
the  35th  chapter  of  Jeremiah,  where  the  history  is  recited 
that  in  the  Lishcah  of  the  Bene-Hanan,  which  adjoined 
the  Lishcah  of  the  princes  (Sarim),  a  numerously  at- 
tended conference  between  a  representative  delegation 
of  the  Rechabites  and  a  committee  of  the  national  As- 
sembly was  held. 

The  object  of  the  conference  was  to  induce  these 
nomads  to  take  up  a  settled,  agricultural  life.  The 
Rechabites,  however,  sturdily  refused  to  abandon  their 
Bedouin  customs.  The  national  Assembly  was  incensed 
at  this  reluctance  to  accept  liberal  offers  advantageous 
as  well  to  the  kingdom  as  to  the  tribesmen. 

Jeremiah  is  commissioned  to  rebuke  the  Assembly  (ish 
Yehudah,  yoshhebe  Yerushalayim)  for  their  insistence, 
and  to  communicate  to  the  tribesmen  the  Divine  approval 
of  their  steadfastness  to  the  customs  of  the  fathers. 

Another  instance  of  this  use  of  Lishcah  is  found  in  the 
36th  chapter  of  Jeremiah. 

The  prophet,  being  imprisoned,  deputes  Baruch  to  read 
his  written  message  in  the  ears  of  the  Am  in  the  Temple, 
on  Convocation  day  (Beyom  tzom),  in  the  ears  of 
Judah,  comers  (Bai'm)  from  their  cities.  Accordingly 
Baruch  reads  it  in  the  Temple  in  the  Lishcah  of  Gema- 
riah  in  the  hearing  of  the  whole  Am. 

Word  is  immediately  sent  to  the  princes  (Sarim)  who 
were  in  session  in  the  Lishcah  of  the  Scribe. 

And  in  later  times  the  Sanhedrin  met  in  the  Lishcah 
or  Hall  of  Hewn  Stone  (Mishnah  Middoth  54;  Pales- 
tinian Talmud  Sanhedrin  I,  19c). 

The  rendering  of  Lishcah  by  "parlor"  in  our  passage 
is  therefore  not  necessarily  correct,  and  as  the  rendering 


32  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

"meeting-hall"  gives  a  more  intelligible  meaning  it 
ought  to  be  accepted. 

As  to  the  word  Rosh,  doubtless  in  most  instances  it 
means  "head."  That  fact,  however,  does  not  exclude 
other  meanings.  If  we  look  at  Murray's  Dictionary  for 
the  meaning  of  the  English  word  "head"  there  will  be 
found  more  than  forty  significations.  While  on  the  one 
hand  it  means  the  upper  part  of  the  body,  on  the  other 
it  is  used  for  the  collection  of  foam  or  froth  on  beer, 
for  the  source  of  a  river,  for  a  chief  point  of  a  discourse 
and  finally  for  a  body  of  people  gathered. 

So  in  the  Hebrew  Dictionary  we  find  that  besides  the 
meaning  "head,"  Rosh  is  defined  as  beginning  (of  a 
time)  ;  as  choicest  in  quality;  as  the  sum  of  a  community, 
and  finally  as  a  company  or  band.  Saul  divided  his  men 
into  three  companies  (rashini)  (i  Sam.  iin);  so  did 
the  PhiHstines  (i  Sam.  1317. is). 

The  Hebrew  language  while  it  was  living,  in  Biblical 
times,  like  all  other  tongues  must  have  assigned  various 
meanings  to  one  and  the  same  word. 

Rosh  in  this  instance  means  session  or  assembly  of  the 
Keruim,  the  Great  Council  sitting  for  political  or  for 
judicial  business. 

The  Keruim  are  not  invited  guests  to  a  private  feast 
as  the  authorized  version  reads,  but  are  the  delegates  to 
the  Assembly.  In  Numbers  lie  ^^^  269  they  are  called 
Keruim  of  the  Edah  and  in  Numbers  162  Keruim  of  the 
Mo'ed. 

In  I  Sam.  924  the  occasion  is  expressly  called  the 
Moed  and  therefore  the  Keruim  are  the  delegates  to  the 
Moed  just  as  in  Numbers  162. 

The  Tabbach  is  not  simply  the  cook,  as  the  authorized 
version  has  it.  The  word  in  this  form  occurs  only  in 
this  narrative,  but  his  acts  show  that  he  is  more  than  a 
cook — is  in  fact  a  high  official  performing  his  functions 
with  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  ceremonial  ritual.     The 


POLITICAL    POWER  33 

related  titles  Sar  lia-tabbachim  and  Rab  tabbachimi  are 
those  of  exalted  officials  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh  (Gen. 
4O3)   and  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  399). 

At  the  simpler  court  of  the  Shophet  Samuel,  the 
Tabbach  must  equally  have  been  a  man  of  dignity  and 
authority. 

Ha- Am  of  course  means  the  same  as  Ha-Keruim. 
With  these  definitions  in  mind  the  story  assumes  a  form 
pregnant  with  meaning. 

922-  And  Samuel  took  Saul  and  his  servant,  brought 
them  into  the  hall  and  seated  them  in  the  Assembly  of 
the  Delegates,  who  were  about  thirty  in  number. 

Right  here  the  Septuagint  furnishes  a  significant  vari- 
ant. Instead  of  the  word  thirty  the  Greek  translation 
has  seventy^  the  exact  number  of  the  Zekenim. 

923.  And  Samuel  said  to  the  Tabbach,  Bring  the  manah 
(portion)  which  I  gave  thee  saying:  Set  it  by  thee. 

924.  And  the  Tabbach  raised  the  shoulder  (shok)  and 
lifted  it  up  and  set  it  before  Saul  with  certain  ceremonial 
words. 

Whether  the  word  shok  means  "  shoulder  "  as  the  au- 
thorized version  has  it  or  "  thigh  "  as  the  revised  version 
puts  it,  is  immaterial  for  our  discussion.  It  is  important, 
however,  to  determine  whether  the  shok  has  a  ceremonial 
value  and  what  that  value  is  as  also  its  relation  to  the 
manah  (portion). 

At  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  the  breast 
of  the  ram  was  a  wave-offering  and  was  his  manah. 
The  breast  and  the  shok  shall  be  Aaron's  and  his  sons 
forever  (Exod.  2921.26.27)- 

The  right  shok  shall  ye  give  unto  the  priest  for  a 
Tenimah  *  *  *  ;  it  is  his  manah  forever  (Lev.  732.33.34)- 

The  shok  as  the  manah  is  therefore  a  symbol  of  the 
greatest  ceremonial  importance.  It  was  used  at  the  Con- 
secration of  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  when  employed 


34  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

on  other  occasions  we  may  fairly  infer  that  the  purpose 
of  such  use  was  consecrative. 

Assuming  this  to  be  so  we  have  before  us  ancient 
forms  of  the  greatest  interest. 

When  Samuel  sets  apart  the  Shok  as  the  Manah  of 
the  future  king  he  says  to  the  Tabbach :  Sim  othah 
'imachj  set  it  by  thee.  This  occurred  not  at  the  mo- 
ment of  Saul's  election  but  earlier  on  the  same  day. 

At  the  Zebach  of  the  Am  on  the  Bamah  (i  Sam.  912) 
the  manah  must  have  been  reserved  by  him  publicly,  in 
the  ceremonial  fashion  described. 

Observe  now  how  the  Tabbach  acts  (verse  24).  He 
raised  (vayarem)  the  shok;  he'aleha  (lifted  it  up)  and 
set  it  before  Saul. 

Samuel  then  takes  up  the  ritual: 

Behold  that  which  is  left !  (nishar) 

Set  it  before  thee  and  eat! 

For  unto  the  Mo'ed  hath  it  been  kept  for  thee, 

Since  I  said  Ha-Am  Karathi. 

The  point  of  time  at  Avhich  Samuel  had  said  Ha  Am 
Karathi  (the  Assembly  is  convened)  was  at  the  opening 
of  the  session,  when  the  sacrifice  or  Zebach  had  been 
offered.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  ancient  bit  of  parlia- 
mentary ritual  in  the  literature  of  the  world,  a  rare 
nishar  (survival). 

These  ceremonies  on  the  Bamah  constituted  the  an- 
nouncement in  the  presence  of  the  Council  that  God 
had  chosen  Saul.  This  was  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
Constitution  (Deut.  1715).  This  mere  announcement, 
however,  was  not  sufficient.  It  still  devolved  on  the 
Am  to  elect  the  king  (Soin  tashn  'alecha  melech)  (ibid.). 
Accordingly  Samuel  convoked  the  Am  to  meet  at  Mizpeh 
(i  Sam.  1O17).  There  he  said  to  them:  Look  upon  him 
whom  the  Lord  hath  chosen.     And  the  Am  shouted : 


POLITICAL    POWER  35 

God  save  the  king!  (1O24).  Then  he  wrote  in  a  book 
the  Mishpat  hameluchah  (the  Royalty  Law,  Deut.  1714-20) 
and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord.  Whereupon  the  Am 
adjourned  (1O25). 

It  may  be  of  interest  in  passing  to  refer  to  the  Tal- 
mud's traditions. 

As  regards  the  functions  of  the  great  Sanhedrin,  the 
Mishnah  (Sanhedrin,  I5  and  2^)  tells  us  that  no  other 
tribunal  could  try  a  whole  tribe,  or  a  whole  city,  or  a 
false  prophet,  that  without  its  assent  the  king  could  not 
declare  war,  nor  could  the  bounds  of  Jerusalem  be  en- 
larged, nor  an  annex  be  added  to  the  Temple.  The 
great  Sanhedrin  alone  had  the  right  to  install  the  minor 
Sanhedrins  of  23. 

And  in  Sanhedrin,  Perek  I,  Hal.  4,  the  same  authority 
tells  us  that  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  sat  in  a  semi- 
circle and  that  the  Nasi  sat  in  the  middle  so  that  they 
could  look  at  each  other. 


II 

JUDICIAL   POWER 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JEREMIAH 

Having,  as  we  think,  made  good  the  claim  of  the 
Am  ha-aretz  to  a  high  place  in  the  political  government 
of  the  country,  it  becomes  necessary  to  show  that  the 
great  judicial  powers  predicated  of  the  Edah  in  the 
Pentateuch  were  possessed  and  exercised  by  the  Am 
ha-aretz.  For  this  purpose  the  first  example  to  be  cited 
is  the  trial  of  Jeremiah  by  the  Am  ha-aretz,  in  which 
trial  the  Sarim,  as  a  co-ordinate  or  constituent  element 
of  the  Am  ha-aretz,  participated. 

Jeremiah  was  one  of  the  greatest  men  in  our  history. 
From  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  we  learn  (1614)  that 
among  the  people  of  Cesarea  Philippi  there  was  a  wide- 
spread opinion  that  Jesus  was  either  Elijah,  Jeremiah 
or  one  of  the  prophets,  newly  risen  to  herald  the  advent 
of  the  Messiah.  The  coupling  of  Jeremiah's  name  with 
Elijah's  indicates  the  high  rank  that  popular  belief  had 
assigned  him. 

Haggadic  literature  associates  in  like  manner  the 
names  of  Moses  and  Jeremiah,  a  sure  sign  of  the  exalted 
place  he  held  in  men's  opinion. 

Originally  a  member  of  the  priestly  and  the  prophetic 
Guilds  he  came  soon  to  look  upon  both  as  falling  short 
in  the  great  work  confided  to  them,  and  thus  it  is  that 
one  of  the  greatest  sons  of  both  classes  uttered  the  most 
eloquent  denunciations  of  their  official  representatives. 


JUDICIAL    POWER  37 

Born  in  650  B.  C.  his  public  career  began  while  yet  a 
young  man  and  from  the  thirteenth  year  of  King  Josiah 
(626  B.  C.)  to  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  (586  B.  C.) 
and  still  later,  he  was  perhaps  the  most  distinguished 
figure  in  the  Judean  kingdom. 

His  activity  was  exercised  during  the  reigns  of  Josiah 
(659-608),  Jehoiakim  (608-597),  and  Zedekiah  (597- 
586),  and  continued  after  the  downfall  of  the  latter. 

It  was  in  the  beginning  of  Jehoiakim's  reign  that  Jere- 
miah stood  in  the  Temple  Court  and  spoke  to  "all  the 
cities  of  Judah  in  the  hearing  of  the  priests  and  the 
prophets"  the  Divine  message:  "If  ye  will  not  hearken 
to  me,  to  walk  in  my  law,  to  heed  the  words  of  my 
servants  the  prophets,  then  will  I  make  this  house  like 
Shiloh,  and  this  city  a  curse  to  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth''  (Jer.  261-8). 

The  speech  must  have  been  a  passionate  appeal  to  the 
Am  for  definite  action  on  a  burning  question.  More- 
over, it  must  have  been  publicly  announced  beforehand 
that  the  priests  and  the  prophets  would  be  arraigned 
for  shortcomings.  They  appeared  in  force  ready  to 
take  advantage  of  one  whom  they  looked  upon  as  their 
enemy  and  the  enemy  of  the  State. 

When  he  had  spoken  the  fateful  words,  they  shouted, 
as  with  one  accord :  "  Thou  must  die."  It  was  a  solemn 
indictment  before  the  Am  charging  Jeremiah  with  the 
capital  crime  of  blasphemy.  At  once  the  Am  was 
formally  convened  in  its  meeting-hall  on  Temple  Hill 
to  consider  the  case  (269).  The  Sarim  were  duly 
notified,  proceeded  to  the  Assembly  from  their  quarters  in 
the  royal  Palace  and  took  their  accustomed  seats  in  the 
Hall  by  the  door  of  the  New  Gate  (2610)- 

In  the  narrative  of  the  Athaliah  revolution  we  had 
occasion  to  remark  that  in  the  south  wall  of  the  Temple 
Court  there  was  behind  the  royal  Palace  a  gate  by  which 
the  queen-mother  passed  on  to  Temple  Hill.     It  is  near 


38  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

the  site  of  this  gate  and  hard  by  the  wall  that  the  Beth- 
Am  must  have  stood  about  the  year  600,  though  the  old 
gate  had  disappeared  and  there  was  in  its  place  a  New 
Gate  of  the  Lord  by  which  on  this  occasion  the  Sarim 
entered  the  Lishcah,  and  hard  by  this  gate  was  the 
station  assigned  to  them  in  the  meeting  of  the  Am 
ha-aretz. 

The  two  chambers  being  seated  the  Court  was  opened. 
The  priests  and  the  prophets  laid  their  formal  complaint 
before  the  Sarim  and  the  Am  demanding  judgment  of 
death  {mishpat-maveth)  against  Jeremiah;  for  that  he 
hath  prophesied  against  the  city  in  the  manner  just  re- 
cited in  the  complaint  (2611). 

The  technical  offence  charged  was  blasphemy,  in 
modern  parlance,  high  treason. 

To  understand  the  situation  we  must  remember  that 
the  priests  and  the  prophets,  each  of  which  bodies  con- 
stituted a  brotherhood  or  guild,  were  probably  respect- 
able and  well-meaning  men  who  tamely  followed  the 
current  of  fashionable  opinion.  Jeremiah  was  by  birth 
entitled  to  membership  in  the  former  and  was  in  'his 
early  years  probably  a  member  of  the  latter.  He  was 
now  arraigning  both  before  the  representatives  of  the 
nation. 

They  were  sincere  therefore  when  they  impeached 
Jeremiah,  who,  in  their  eyes,  was  a  disturber  of  the 
public  peace  and  an  inciter  to  revolution  against  Church 
and  State. 

The  evidence  they  gave  was  true.  They  merely 
recited  the  words  he  had  used  and  he  admitted  the  fact. 

The  question  of  law  raised  was :  Whether  the  admitted 
fact  constituted  blasphemy. 

That  public  excitement  ran  high  may  well  be  imagined. 
A  prophet  spurned  by  the  regulars,  but  excelling  them  all 
in  eloquence  and  reputation  was  sure  to  be  a  popular  hero. 
The  fact  that  under  these  circumstances  Jeremiah  spoke 


JUDICIAL    POWER  39 

his  denunciation  within  a  few  feet  of  the  royal  Palace 
and  within  the  Temple  precincts  controlled  by  the  priestly 
and  prophetic  guilds,  bears  witness  to  the  freedom  en- 
joyed by  the  people  and  to  the  firm  reliance  men  had  in 
the  honest  administration  of  the  law. 

Jeremiah  spoke  thus  in  his  defence :  "  Sarim  and  Am, 
the  Lord  sent  me  to  prophesy  against  this  Temple  and 
against  this  city.  If  ye  amend  your  ways  and  your 
doings  and  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your  God,  the 
Lord  will  repent  him  of  the  evil  that  he  hath  pronounced 
against  you.  As  for  me,  I  am  in  your  hand.  Do  with 
me  as  seemeth  good  and  meet  unto  you.  But  know,  for 
certain,  that  if  ye  put  me  to  death,  ye  bring  innocent 
blood  upon  yourselves,  upon  this  city  and  upon  its 
inhabitants;  for,  verily,  the  Lord  hath  sent  me  unto  you 
to  speak  these  words  which  ye  have  heard"  (2612-15). 

The  defence  was  dignified  and  noble  and  worthy  to  be 
spoken  in  the  highest  Court  of  the  realm. 

The  first  speech  was  for  the  prosecution.  One  of  the 
Zekenim  who  favored  that  side  opened,  not  by  a  vulgar 
tirade,  but  in  the  legal  fashion  of  a  country  long  ac- 
customed to  fair  and  open  judicial  procedure.  *  Relying 
upon  a  recent  precedent  he  said:  In  this  very  reign  of 
Jehoiakim  there  was  Uriah  the  son  of  Shemaiah  of 
Kiryath-yearim  who  also  prophesied  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  against  this  city  and  against  this  land  just  as  Jere- 
miah has  done.  And  when  the  king  Jehoiakim,  his  Gib- 
borim  and  his  Sarim  heard  the  w^ords,  the  king  ordered 
his  death,  and  when  Uriah  learned  this,  he  was  afraid 
and  fled  into  Egypt.  And  the  king  sent  Elnathan  and 
certain  men  to  follow  him  into  Egypt,  and  they  brought 
him  back  to  the  king  Jehoiakim,  who  slew  him  with  the 
sword  and  cast  his  dead  body  into  the  cemetery  of  the 
malefactors   (Bene  ha-Am)    (2620-23)- 

The  speech  was  a  dangerous  one.  It  threw  in  the 
teeth  of  the  assembled  Sarim  and  Am  the  accusation 


40  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

that  they  had,  a  short  time  before,  themselves  adjudi- 
cated the  question  in  harmony  with  the  Royal  will  and 
that  the  accused  had  with  their  assent  or  acquiescence 
suffered  death. 

Then  one  of  the  Zekenim  whose  name  is  unfortunately 
not  preserved  spoke:  Micah  the  Morasthite  in  the  days 
of  Hezekiah,  prophesied  in  an  address  to  the  Am,  "  Zion 
shall  be  ploughed  like  a  field  and  Jerusalem  shall  become 
heaps,  and  the  Temple  Mount  like  the  Bamoth  of  for- 
ests/' Did  Hezekiah  and  Col-Yehudah  put  him  to 
death?  Did  they  not  rather  fear  the  Lord  and  beseech 
the  Lord,  and  lo,  the  Lord  repented  him  of  the  evil  which 
he  had  denounced  against  them?  We  may  do  great 
evil  to  ourselves  (2616-19). 

And  then  rose  Ahikam  one  of  the  Sarim,  a  distin- 
guished scion  of  the  great  house  of  Shaphan.  In  his 
family  had  been  for  at  least  two  generations  the  high 
office  of  Sofer  of  the  Am  ha-aretz,  in  whose  Lishcah  the 
Sarim  had  their  meeting-hall  (Jer.  3610-12)-  His  father 
had  been  one  of  the  great  men  in  Josiah's  reign  (2 
Kings  223).  It  was  to  him  that  Hilkiah  communicated 
the  news  of  the  finding  of  the  Sefer  ha-Torah  (2  Kings 
223)  and  he  it  was  who  read  it  to  the  king  (verse  10). 
And  among  the  Royal  Commission  of  five  appointed  by 
Josiah  to  put  in  force  the  new  Constitution  of  the  realm 
were  Shaphan  and  his  son  our  Ahikam  (2  Kings  2212- 
2325)-  And  Ahikam's  son  was  Gedaliah,  so  famous  in 
Jewish  annals,  who,  appointed  viceroy  of  Judea  by  the 
Babylonian  monarch,  fell  a  victim  to  the  unworthy 
jealousy  of  the  decadent  Court  party,  and  thereby  earned 
immortality  in  Israel. 

We  may  be  sure  that  Ahikam  spoke  with  no  uncertain 
words.  His  address  has  not  survived,  but  its  effect  was 
so  striking  that  Jeremiah's  acquittal  by  the  Am,  was  after- 
wards attributed  to  it.  The  notice  is  brief  but  eloquent : 
The  hand  of  Ahikam  ben  Shaphan  was  with  Jeremiah 


JUDICIAL    POWER  41 

that  he  might  not  be  condemned  to  death  by  the  Am 
(Jer.  2624). 

The  great  prophet  was  acquitted.  Fortunately  the 
words  of  the  judgment  are  preserved,  a  precious  relic  of 
the  practice  of  the  High  Court :  The  Sarim  and  the  Am 
declare  to  the  priests  and  the  prophets  that  this  man 
(Jeremiah)  is  not  liable  to  the  mishpat  maveth  (is  not 
guilty  of  anything  deserving  death),  "he  having  spoken 
to  us  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  our  God  "  (Jer.  26^^). 

One  word  in  conclusion  as  to  the  linguistic  peculiarities 
of  the  narrative.  There  are  some  errors  in  the  text 
doubtless,  but  none  that  lead  to  confusion.  The  term 
Am  ha-aretz  does  not  occur  in  it.  In  lieu  thereof  we 
have  the  expressions:  cities  of  Judah  (meaning  the  dele- 
gates to  the  Am)  (Jer.  262) ;  col  ha- Am  (verses  7,  8,  9, 
II,  12,  16);  Sarim  ve-col-ha-am  (verses  11,  12,  16); 
zikne  ha-aretz  (verse  17) ;  Col-Kehal  ha'am  (verse  17) ; 
col- Am  Yehudah  (verse  18)  ;  col  Yehudah  (verse  19) 
and  ha-Am  (verse  24). 

B 
THE  TRIAL  OF  NABOTH 

The  trial  of  Jeremiah  took  place  in  Jerusalem  about  the 
year  600  B.  C.  The  trial  of  Naboth  came  off  in  Jezreel 
in  the  northern  kingdom  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  earlier.  The  order  of  my  treatment  may  seem  in- 
verted but  it  was  deemed  better  to  show  the  Am  and 
Sarim  sitting  together  as  a  Court  in  unmistakable  fashion 
in  Jerusalem  before  asking  attention  to  the  existence  of 
the  same  ancient  institution  in  Ephraim. 

By  a  singular  coincidence  the  charge  in  this  case  too 
was  blasphemy  (leze-majesty  or  high  treason). 

Naboth,  a  member  of  the  national  Council  was  a  resi- 
dent of  Jezreel  where  among  his  paternal  estates  was  a 
vineyard  hard  by  King  Ahab's  Palace.  The  king  wished 
to  buy  it  and  offered  in  exchange  its  money  value  or  a 


42  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

better  vineyard.  Jezreel  being  a  walled  city,  such  a  sale 
would  have  made  the  law  of  Jubilee  inapplicable  and  the 
inheritance  of  his  fathers  would  have  been  forever  lost  to 
the  family  of  Naboth.  He  received  the  proposal  with 
horror  and  flatly  refused.  The  king  showed  his  annoy- 
ance. Jezebel  the  queen,  remarking  it,  asked  the  reason 
and  heard  the  story.  The  haughty  Tyrian  princess  railed 
at  the  royalty  which  could  not  accomplish  so  little  a  thing 
(i  Kings  211-7).  The  Constitution  could,  however,  not 
be  overcome.  There  was  in  Israel  no  power  in  the  king 
to  take  away  the  property  of  his  subjects  without  their 
consent.  Nevertheless  the  law  which  could  not  be 
changed  by  force  might  be  evaded  by  fraud.  With 
Ahab's  acquiescence  she  assumed  the  royal  powers  for  the 
purpose.  In  the  name  of  the  king  she  wrote  sefarim 
(writs  or  letters)  and  sealed  them  with  the  royal  seal,  ad- 
dressing them,  to  those  of  the  Zekenim  and  the  Horim 
who  dwelt  in  Jezreel,  fellow-members  (Yoshebim)  of  the 
National  Council  with  Naboth.  These  resident  delegates 
evidently  constituted  a  committee  whose  duty  it  was  when 
the  Council  should  be  convoked  to  meet  in  their  city,  to 
notify  the  members  of  that  fact  and  to  make  all  arrange- 
ments necessary  for  the  session.  The  writs  required  this 
committee  to  convoke  the  Assembly  {Kim  tzom). 
Doubtless  these  were  letters  patent  and  were  addressed 
to  all  the  resident  members  including  Naboth  himself. 

With  them,  however,  must  have  gone  secret  instruc- 
tions of  which  Naboth  was  to  have  no  inkling.  By  virtue 
of  these  the  business  of  the  session  was  to  try  Naboth  on 
the  charge  mentioned,  to  convict  him  of  this  capital 
offence,  to  execute  him  and  to  confiscate  his  estate. 

It  may  be  that  Naboth  in  his  indignation  at  the  king's 
proposal  had  uttered  some  hasty  words.  However  that 
may  be,  they  were  insufficient  to  warrant  the  course  di- 
rected to  be  pursued. 

In  order  to  make  the  conviction  sure  and  give  it  the 


JUDICIAL    POWER  43 

appearance  of  regularity,  the  pliant  committee  were  ad- 
vised to  hire  two  perjured  witnesses  who  would  give  the 
necessary  testimony.  The  plan  was  carried  out  to  the 
letter.  Naboth  was  executed  and  Jezebel  was  duly 
notified. 

Then  Jezebel,  triumphing  over  Ahab,  said  to  him :  Take 
possession  of  Naboth's  vineyard,  and  Ahab  did  so. 

The  sleepless  tribune  of  the  people,  the  prophet  Elijah, 
boldly  confronted  the  royal  malefactor  in  his  new  domain 
and  foretold  the  equal  and  retributive  justice  of  God 
against  him  and  his  line.  And  as  to  Jezebel  who  had 
caused  Naboth  to  descend  into  a  dishonored  grave,  the 
rite  of  burial  should  be  denied  her  and  her  carcass  become 
food  for  ravening  dogs. 

And  the  noble  committee  of  Zekenim  and  Horim  who 
had  been  so  pliant  to  the  will  of  Jezebel  and  who  were 
equally  ready  to  murder  Ahab's  progeny  when  Jehu's  re- 
bellion proved  successful,  met  their  due  reward  at  the 
hands  of  Jehu  himself  (2  Kings  lOj-u). 

That  we  have  before  us  the  record  of  historical  events 
which  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  people  is  evident 
from  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Hosea.  The 
prophet's  words  indicate  that  the  people  at  large  had  a 
keenly  developed  sense  of  justice  and  law,  that  this  had 
been  shocked  by  the  crimes  committed  and  that  Heaven 
itself  would  avenge  the  wrong. 

The  details  of  the  narrative  furnish  convincing  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  constitutional  limitations  in  the 
northern  kingdom  and  that  such  limitations  were  un- 
known in  the  neighboring  kingdom  of  Tyre. 

The  case  was  a  capital  case  involving  the  life  of  the 
defendant  as  well  as  his  property  (i  Kings  2i13.15.i6)- 
And  yet  the  Court  had  no  power  to  disbelieve  witnesses. 
So  soon  as  the  requisite  number  of  them  had  declared  the 
fatal  facts,  the  judgment  seems  to  have  been  inevitable 
(verse  13). 
4 


44  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

However  strange  this  view  may  seem  to  us  now,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  consistent  with  ancient  Hebrew  law.  The 
Decalogue  (Exod.  20^6)  expressly  forbids  false  witness 
and  Deut.  1921  providing  for  the  punishment  of  this  crime 
enacts :  "  Thine  eye  shall  not  pity  but  life  shall  go  for 
life."  He  that  swore  away  a  man's  life  was  to  die  for 
it.  For  this  reason  the  blame  is  not  thrown  upon  the  Am 
in  general,  but  only  on  the  managing  committee  who  per- 
petrated the  iniquity  and  virtually  compelled  the  other 
members  to  kill  Naboth  and  confiscate  his  property.  It 
was  the  city  members,  his  townsmen,  who  did  this  to  gain 
the  royal  favor  (verse  11),  and  upon  themi  fell  the  Divine 
punishment  for  the  judicial  murder. 

The  difficulties  in  the  narrative  are  not  to  be  ignored. 
The  words  Kiru  tzom  are  by  the  authorized  version  ren- 
dered "  Proclaim  a  fast."  We  have  already  seen  that 
Kara  is  the  technical  word  for  convoking  the  Assembly, 
and  that  its  members  are  called  Keruim.  The  word  t^om, 
translated  "  fast,"  sometimes  means  a  convocation  of  the 
national  Council.  In  two  instances  ( Jer.  366.9)  the  word 
is  used  to  describe  a  gathering  of  the  Am  (all  Judah, 
comers  from  their  cities;  the  Am  in  Jerusalem  and  the 
Am,  comers  from  the  cities  of  Judah).  Joseph  Kimchi, 
the  father  of  Moses  and  David  Kimchi  (quoted  by  David 
Kimchi  in  his  Lexicon  and  by  Luzzatto  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  Jeremiah)  expressly  says  that  tzom  in  i 
Kings  2 1 9. 12  and  in  Jer.  369  does  not  mean  fasting,  but  a 
popular  assemblage. 

Placing  Naboth  berosh  ha-Am  is  of  course  a  difficult 
phrase,  rendered  by  the  authorized  version  "  Set  Naboth 
on  high  among  the  people."  Yet  after  all  it  is  identical 
with  the  Rosh  ha-Keruim  of  i  Sam.  922-  The  difficulty 
is  purely  lexical  and  need  not  concern  us.  The  context 
makes  it  certain  that  Naboth  was  to  be  tried  and  was 
tried  by  the  Am  just  as  Saul  was  to  be  tested  and  was 
tested  by  the  Keruim,  and  that  the  word  berosh  describes 


JUDICIAL    POWER  45 

the  fact  whatever  its  ordinary  or  root  meaning  may  be. 
It  is,  however,  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  ascertain  what 
rosh  really  means  because  the  understanding  of  it  may 
throw  light  on  other  Scriptural  passages. 

The  bluntest  meaning  of  be-rosh  would  be :  a  specified 
position  or  place  in  a  court-room  or  assembly  room,  set 
apart  for  the  reception  of  criminals  on  trial  or  of  persons 
to  be  approved  or  rejected.  That  such  a  place  might 
have  been  used  in  a  Hebrew  court-room  or  assembly-room 
and  that  it  might  have  been  called  the  Rosh  or  head,  is  of 
course  possible. 

The  more  probable  meaning  of  Berosh  ha- Am  would 
seem  to  be  "  in  the  session  of  the  'Am."  In  speaking  of 
a  man  on  trial  for  crime,  there  are  places  in  England  and 
in  this  country  where  it  would  be  said  that  he  is  "  in  the 
sessions,"  because  courts  of  criminal  jurisdiction  are  fre- 
quently so  called.  Such  a  use  of  the  word  Rosh  is  not 
without  analogy. 

Neh.  1246-  In  the  days  of  David  and  Asaph  of  old 
there  was  a  Rosh  (guild)  of  singers. 

I  Chron.  167.  On  that  day  David  delivered  in  the 
Rosh  (session  of  singers)  the  Lehodoth  ladonai  (the  g2d 
Psalm  or  perhaps  a  whole  series  of  psalms  of  similar  pur- 
port) into  the  hand  of  Asaph  and  his  brethren. 

Judges  937.  One  rosh  (company  of  soldiers). 

A  guild  or  company  is  after  all  but  a  relatively  small 
aggregation.  The  word  Rosh  soon  acquired  a  larger 
sense.  When  the  census  of  Israel  was  to  be  taken 
(Exod.  3O12,  Numbers  I2)  the  expression  used  is  Nsa 
Rosh,  which  means  literally,  lifting  up  the  head,  but  prac- 
tically, taking  up  the  number  or  sum  of  the  people. 

Of  course  Nsa  Rosh  as  census-taking  is  an  exercise  of 
political  power.  But  the  expression  has  also  a  judicial 
sense  in  two  narratives,  Gen.  4O13.19,  Jer.  523^.  In  both 
instances  persons  who  have  been  undergoing  punishment 
have  their  cases  reconsidered. 


46  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

The  generally  accepted  meaning  of  the  term  Nsa  Rosh 
in  these  cases  is  to  pardon,  to  restore  to  honor.  Unfor- 
tunately for  this  definition  one  of  the  three  persons 
affected  by  the  process  of  Nsa  Rosh,  was  not  pardoned 
but  hanged. 

The  usual  definition  is  therefore  untenable  unless  we 
assume  that  in  one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  writing  in 
Genesis,  the  history  of  Joseph,  the  beauty  of  the  style  and 
the  gravity  of  the  theme  (the  loss  of  a  gentleman's  honor, 
life  and  estate),  are  suddenly  marred  by  the  unexpected 
levity  of  a  play  upon  words. 

The  real  meaning  is  that  the  case  was  taken  up  anew, 
was  reconsidered,  doubtless  with  a  view  to  conferring 
grace  and  pardon  if  practicable.  In  our  own  language, 
the  transfer  of  a  judgment  to  an  Appellate  Court  for 
review  is  familiarily  called  "  taking  up  the  case." 

Gen.  4O13  would  then  be  rendered :  Within  three  days 
Pharaoh  will  take  up  thy  case  (consider  it)  and  he  will 
restore  thee  to  thy  office. 

Gen.  4O19  would  mean:  Within  three  days  Pharaoh 
will  take  up  thy  case  (consider  it)  and  shall  hang  thee  on 
a  tree;  and  the  birds  shall  eat  thy  flesh  from  off  thee 
(me'alecha). 

Gen.  4020-  And  it  came  to  pass  the  third  day,  which 
was  Pharaoh's  birthday  that  he  made  a  feast  to  his 
ministers  and  he  took  up  the  case  of  the  chief  butler  and 
of  the  chief  baker  with  his  ministers. 

Gen.  4O21.  And  he  restored  the  chief  butler  into  his 
butler  ship  again. 

Gen.  4O22.  But  he  hanged  the  chief  baker. 

The  only  difficulty  in  the  text  is  the  word  me'alecha  in 
the  19th  verse.  It  occurs  twice,  once  naturally  at  the 
end  of  the  verse  (after  the  word  besarccha),  and  again 
in  the  middle  of  the  verse  after  the  word  roshecha.  This 
last  insertion  seems  a  mere  copyist's  error,  since  verse  22 
alludes  to  no  punishment  that  had  been  inflicted  save 
hanging.     Decapitation  is  not  mentioned. 


JUDICIAL    POWER  47 

The  meaning  here  suggested  is  in  harmony  with  Jer. 
5231,  where  it  is  related  that  Evil-Merodach,  King  of 
Babylon,  nasa  et-rosh  (took  up  the  case)  of  Jehoiachin, 
King  of  Judah,  and  brought  him  forth  out  of  prison. 
Here  as  in  the  passages  from  Genesis,  the  case  is  first 
considered  and  then  the  result  is  announced.  If  the  sug- 
gestion here  made  is  correct  it  would  follow  that  the 
word  me' alec  ha  after  roshecha  would  have  to  be  elided 
from  Gen.  4019. 

It  is  to  be  noted  here  that  both  cases  occur  in  foreign 
countries,  the  one  in  Egypt,  the  other  in  Babylon;  that 
in  the  former  the  king  was  celebrating  his  birthday  by  a 
feast  to  his  ministers,  and  in  the  latter  Evil  Merodach 
was  celebrating  his  accession  to  the  throne.  Both  were 
occasions  when  it  has  always  been  and  still  is  customary 
for  royal  persons  to  hold  Beds  of  Pardon  and  grant  grace 
as  freely  as  practicable.  Perhaps  the  inference  is  allow- 
able that  in  Israel  the  constitution  and  the  laws  so  limited 
the  royal  power  that  there  was  much  less  opportunity  for 
the  exhibition  of  capricious  grace  or  wanton  cruelty  by 
the  king,  than  in  the  other  monarchies  of  the  near  East. 

There  is  another  instance  of  this  use  of  the  word  Yissa 
in  Habakkuk.  In  his  first  chapter  he  complains  of  the 
law's  delays. 

Verse  3.  There  is  the  rib  (the  issue  to  be  tried)  and 
the  mad  on  (judgment)  yissa  (is  taken  up,  appealed). 

Verse  4.  Therefore  the  law  is  slacked,  and  judgment 
doth  never  go  forth ;  for  the  offender  doth  compass  about 
him  that  hath  the  right  of  it ;  therefore  twisted  judgment 
is  rendered. 

Of  the  limited  nature  of  the  Judean  king's  pardoning 
power  there  is  a  striking  instance  in  King  Zedekiah's 
time.  Jeremiah  advocated  certain  measures  which 
neither  the  king,  nor  his  ministers,  nor  the  Am  ha-aretz 
would  adopt  (Jer.  372).  The  probability  is  that  he 
warned  them  against  the  Egyptian  alliance,   foreseeing 


48  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

Babylonian  pre-eminence  (4619-26)  and  the  dire  results 
of  Babylonian  enmity  (378-10) •  A  charge  was  trumped 
up  against  him  that  he  was  about  to  desert  to  the 
Chaldean  enemy,  for  which  alleged  act  of  treason  he 
was  whipped  and  imprisoned  (3713-19)  and  the  king  was 
asked  in  effect  to  sign  his  death-warrant  on  the  ground 
that  "  he  weakeneth  the  spirit  of  the  garrison  and  of  the 
Am  by  speaking  to  them  as  he  does.  He  seeketh  not  the 
welfare  of  the  people,  but  the  hurt"  (384). 

Zedekiah  did  not  dare  to  refuse  (Jer.  385),  and  gave 
the  Sarim  their  warrant  in  these  words:  ''Behold  he  is 
in  your  hand;  for  the  king  cannot  do  anything  against 
you." 

The  mode  of  death  chosen  was  not  one  of  those  pre- 
scribed by  law.  He  was  put  in  a  loathsome  place  where 
he  would  be  sure  to  die  and  his  death  could  be  represented 
to  the  people  as  due  to  natural  causes  or  to  accident. 

The  interference  of  a  powerful  friend,  a  member  of 
the  king's  cabinet,  saved  Jeremiah's  life.  But  even  with 
this  influence  at  work,  the  king  did  not  dare  to  pardon 
Jeremiah.  He  merely  changed  the  prison.  And  when, 
before  doing  this,  he  had  an  interview  with  Jeremiah  on 
the  great  political  question  involved,  he  told  the  latter  in 
effect  that  the  Sarim  would  immediately  investigate  the 
matter  and  if  the  subject  of  the  interview  were  disclosed 
they  would  surely  put  him  to  death,  warning  him  at  the 
same  time  to  be  prudently  reticent,  and  merely  to  tell  them 
that  he  had  presented  to  the  king  a  petition  for  removal 
to  another  prison  (387-26). 

And  in  point  of  fact  the  Sarim  immediately  brought 
Jeremiah  before  them  and  made  inquiry  as  to  the  nature 
of  his  interview  with  the  king.  He  suppressed  the  main 
portion  and  was  allowed  to  return  to  the  milder  prison, 
where  he  was  found  when  the  Babylonians  captured  the 
city. 


Ill 

THE  WITNESS  OF  LITERATURE 

When  ideas  are  deeply  rooted  in  the  consciousness  of 
a  nation  they  find  Hterary  expression.  If  our  view  of 
the  meaning  of  these  words  Am  ha-aretz  and  Rosh  be 
correct,  the  Hebrew  Hterature  ought  to  confirm  it. 

I  have  already  said  that  the  word  Am  ha-aretz  is 
usually  rendered  "the  people  at  large  as  a  body;  com- 
mon people."  Ezekiel  7^  has  been  often  used  by  lexi- 
cographers to  support  this  view.  And  yet  it  is  Ezekiel 
himself  who  has  furnished  the  only  real  definition  of  the 
word  in  Biblical  literature  and  that  in  a  contrary  sense. 
In  his  22d  chapter,  verse  29,  he  complains  that  the  Am 
ha-aretz  have  used  oppression  and  exercised  robbery, 
have  vexed  the  poor  and  needy  and  have  oppressed  the 
stranger  wrongfully  (belo  mishpat,  denying  justice). 
The  plain  meaning  is  that  this  very  Am  ha-aretz,  violat- 
ing its  function  to  deal  out  mishpat  (judgment),  op- 
presses the  people  at  large.  Such  a  conception  un- 
erringly points  to  a  governing  body  which  has  departed 
from  its  original  purpose  to  represent  the  people  and  is 
acting  in  hostility  to  the  latter.  And  an  examination  of 
the  six  other  passages  in  Ezekiel  confirms  this  view. 

In  726.27J  foretelling  evil  doom,  he  enumerates  calami- 
ties: the  law  (Torah)  shall  perish  from  the  Cohen  and 
Counsel  from  the  Zekenim,  the  King  shall  mourn,  the 
Nasi  be  clothed  with  desolation  and  the  hands  of  the 
Am  ha-aretz  shall  be  troubled.  This  is  a  catalogue  of 
magnates  of  the  country.  Similar  lists  are  found  in 
2226.29 :  priests,  sarim,  prophets,  Am  ha-aretz. 

Jeremiah  has  like  enumerations: 

ijjj.       King,  sarim,  priests.  Am  ha-aretz. 


50  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

3419.       Sarim,  sarisim,  priests,  Am  ha-aretz. 
372.         King,  ministers.  Am;  ha-aretz. 
4421.       King,  sarim,  Am  ha-aretz. 
5224.25.  Cohen  ha-rosh,  Cohen  ha-Mishneh,  door- 
keepers,  general   of   the  army,   king's 
cabinet,  marshal  of  the  Am  ha-aretz, 
members  of  the  Am  ha-aretz. 
Job  does  the  like    (i2i8_24):  king,   priests,   zekenim, 
nedibim.  Am  ha-aretz,  as  does  Haggai  (24)  :  Zerubbabel, 
high  priest.  Am  ha-aretz. 

Moreover,  Ezekiel  puts  the  Nasi  in  direct  relation  with 
the  Am  ha-aretz  and  even  places  him  in  the  middle  where 
its  President  should  be. 

In  Ezekiel  45  ig  the  Am  ha-aretz  gives  an  oblation  for 
the  Nasi  and  in 

4522  the  Nasi  gives  an  offering  for  himself  and 
for  the  Am  ha-aretz 

461  The  gate  of  the  inner  court  that  looketh  to 

the  east  shall  be  opened  on  Sabbath  and 
on  the  day  of  the  new  moon; 

462  the  Nasi  shall  worship  at  the  threshold  of 

this  gate  and 

463  the  Ami  ha-aretz  shall  worship  at  the  door 

of  this  gate. 

463  When  the  Nasi  shall  enter  he  shall  go  in 
and  go  out  by  the  way  of  the  porch  of 
this  gate. 

469  But  when  the  Ami  ha-aretz  shall  come  before 
the  Lord  in  the  solemn  feasts,  he  that 
entereth  in  by  the  way  of  the  north  gate 
to  worship  shall  go  out  by  the  way  of 
the  south  gate;  and  he  that  entereth  by 
the  way  of  the  south  gate  shall  go  forth 
by  the  way  of  the  north  gate  (one  half 
comes  in  by  the  north  gate;  the  other 
half  by  the  south  gate) ; 


THE   WITNESS    OF    LITERATURE  51 

4610  And  the  Nasi  in  the  midst  of  them   {be- 
tocham)  ;  when  they  go  in,  he  shall  go 
in;  and  when  they  go  forth,  he  shall  go 
forth. 
And  yet  another  thing.     Ezekiel    (1219)    by  apposi- 
tion defines  the  Am  ha-aretz  as  the  yoshebe  yerushalayim 
and  the  admath  Yisreal,  both  apt  expressions  for  dele- 
gates. 

Here  are  instances  of  parallelism : 

Isaiah  ijo:  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  Ketdnim 
(nobles)  of  Sodom;  Give  ear  unto  the  law  of  our  God 
'Am  oi  Gomorrah. 

Psalm  10732 :  Let  them  exalt  him  in  the  meeting  of  the 
Am,  And  praise  him  in  the  Assembly  of  the  Zekenim. 

The  most  striking  passage  of  all  is  Job  (122).  Job's 
friends  having  irritated  him  with  long  preachments  and 
Zophar  having  impeached  his  good  sense  (iie)  he  at 
length  breaks  out :  "  No  doubt  ye  are  the  Am  and  wisdom 
will  die  with  you."  No  one  has  ever  before  been  able 
to  assign  a  satisfactory  meaning  to  this  sentence. 

There  is  still  the  term  Keher  or  Kihre  bene  Ha-Am, 
the  graves  (or  cemetery)  of  the  bene  ha-Am.  In  2 
Kings  22,Q  the  implements  of  heathendom  are  burned  and 
the  ashes  thrown  upon  this  place.  In  Jer.  2633  the 
prophet  Uriah  having  been  executed  for  blasphemy,  his 
dead  body  was  thrown  into  the  same  place. 

The  translators  render,  in  one  place,  "the  graves  of 
the  common  people,"  and  in  the  other,  "the  graves  of 
the  children  of  the  people."  These  variant  definitions 
of  the  same  expression  have  this  in  common  that  neither 
gives  any  sensible  meaning.  Assuming  the  common 
people  to  be  the  majority  of  inhabitants,  it  is  incredible 
that  their  graves  should  be  subject  to  gross  defilement. 

If,  however,  we  reflect  for  a  moment,  the  difficulty 
seems  capable  of  a  reasonable  solution. 


52  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

Blasphemy,  as  is  well  known,  was  punishable  by  death ; 
the  form  of  death,  stoning,  was  looked  upon  as  the 
severest  of  all.  The  ancient  mode  of  inflicting  this 
punishment  was  by  taking  the  offender  to  a  place  at  the 
edge  of  a  deep  depression,  when  the  first  witness  gave 
him  a  push  in  the  back  which  precipitated  him  into  the 
depth  below  so  that  the  fall  itself  might  produce  death. 
If  this  result  was  not  obtained,  the  second  witness  threw 
the  first  stone  upon  the  victim's  chest.  If  he  was  still 
alive  the  whole  Am  threw  stones  upon  him  (Deut.  1310 
177;  Lev.  24i4_ig;  Mishnah  Sanhedrin  VI.  4). 

There  was  doubtless  a  place  of  execution  overhanging 
the  Kidron  valley,  and  the  burial-place  was  at  or  near 
the  point  where  the  bodies  fell.  Such  a  cemetery  for 
the  victims  of  the  Am  might  by  a  euphemism  be  called 
*'the  cemetery  of  the  children  of  the  Am/'  and  would  of 
course  suggest  horrible  defilement. 

When,  therefore,  the  implements  of  idolatry  were  re- 
duced to  ashes  and  this  form  of  worship  was  to  be 
publicly  disgraced,  the  natural  place  for  depositing  the 
ashes  would  be  this  cemetery  of  the  malefactors. 

The  texts  all  fit  in  with  this  meaning.  The  exist- 
ence of  such  a  place  of  defilement  in  the  Kidron  valley 
is  established  for  the  time  of  Asa  (i  Kings  1513,  2 
Chron.  iSie)  ;  for  the  time  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  2910 
3O14) ;  and  for  the  time  of  Josiah  (2  Kings  2^q). 

The  description  of  Jer.  (31 39)  thus  becomes  plain. 
He  speaks  in  Messianic  language  of  the  time  when  that 
which  is  now  defiled  shall  become  sanctified,  using  this 
language:  "And  the  whole  valley  of  the  carcasses,  and 
of  the  ashes,  and  all  the  fields  unto  the  brook  of  Kidron 
*  *  *  shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord." 

In  early  times  this  place  of  execution  overhanging 
the  Kidron  valley  in  or  near  Jerusalem  was  probably 
called  Azazel.  Much  curious  learning  has  been  ex- 
pended on  this  name  as  well  in  ancient  as  in  modern 


THE   WITNESS    OF    LITERATURE  53 

times,  but  the  sober  judgment  of  the  Rabbis  that  it 
meant  a  steep  cliff,  though  perhaps  imperfect  on  the 
score  of  etymology,  is  as  regards  the  substance  of  the 
matter,  correct  (Talmud  Babli,  Yoma  67b). 

The  ceremony  of  the  Scapegoat  (Lev.  1621),  the 
atonement  of  the  nation  for  blood  shed  by  undiscovered 
malefactors,  is  an  extension  to  the  whole  country  of  a 
similar  ceremony  once  incumbent  upon  the  inhabitants 
of  a  city   (Deut.  211-9). 

The  high-priest  laid  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the 
goat.  It  was  then  sent  off  into  the  wilderness  and  by 
a  push  in  the  back  thrown  down  to  its  death  from  a 
sheer  mountain-cliff  (Mishnah,  Yoma  VI4). 

That  these  proceedings  are  in  entire  analogy  with  the 
ceremonies  at  the  execution  of  criminals  appears  from 
the  old  law  (Lev.  2414-1  e)  where  in  cases  of  blasphemy 
the  Edah  stoned  the  criminal  while  the  witnesses  laid 
their  hands  upon  his  head. 

It  is  fair  to  conclude  that  originally  Azazel  was  the 
name  of  a  high  point  in  or  about  Jerusalem,  that  it 
overlooked  the  Kidron  valley  and  was  the  place  of 
execution.  In  later  times  the  name  was  transferred  to 
the  height  some  miles  off,  from  which  the  scapegoat 
was  hurled. 

To  these  literary  quotations  concerning  the  Am  I  may 
add  as  an  item  of  interest  that  celebrated  Amoraim,  six- 
teen hundred  years  ago  divined  the  meaning  now  as- 
signed to  it. 

Jonathan  ben  Eleazar  in  the  third  century  and  Abahu 
about  the  year  300  found  the  Sanhedrin,  the  former  in 
the  Am  ha-aretz  of  2  Kings  2518-21  and  Jer.  5234-27 
(Talmud  Yerush.,  Sanhedrin,  Perek  i,  Hal.  2)  and  the 
latter  in  the  Edah  of  Numbers  2721  (Talmud  Babli, 
Sanhedrin  i6a). 

As  regards  the  word  Rosh,  literary  examples  (besides 
those  already  adduced)   are  not  wanting. 


54  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

Deut.  2O9.  And  it  shall  be  when  the  shoterim  have  made 
an  end  of  speaking  to  the  people,  that  they  shall 
make  captains  of  the  armies  be-rosh  ha- Am  (in  the 
session  of  the  Am). 

Deut.  335.  And  he  was  king  in  Jeshurun,  when  the 
Rashe-Am  were  gathered  together — the  tribes  of 
Israel. 

Ibid.  3321.  Of  Gad — And  his  was  the  first  place,  be- 
cause there  in  the  portion  of  the  lawgiver  (mehokek) 
was  he  seated,  and  there — the  Rashe-Am  having 
come — he  executed  the  decree  of  the  Lord  and  his 
judgments  with  Israel. 

Judg.  934.  Four  rashim  (companies). 
937.  One  rosh  (company). 
943.  Three  rashim  (companies). 

2  Sam.  38.  Am  I  of  the  Rosh  (Council,  League)  of  Caleb 
which  is  with  Judah? 

1  Sam.  282.  Therefore  I  will  make  thee  perpetual  shomer 

(officer,  perhaps  like  shoter.     See  also  2  Kings  9^4) 
of  my  rosh  (council). 

2  Kings  23.5.  The  Lord  will  take  away  thy  master  from 

thy  rosh  (guild)  to-day. 
Isa.  5120-  Berosh  (in  the  concourse)  of  streets. 
Jer.  3 1 6.  Berosh  ha-goyim  (in  the  council  of  the  nations). 
Ezek.  2 1 26-  The  King  of  Babylon  stood  at  the  parting 

of  the  way,  at  the  union  (rosh)  of  the  two  ways. 

382.3  39i.    Magog  the  Nasi  of  the  rosh    (league, 

union)  of  Meshech  and  Tubal. 

4O1.  Berosh  ha-shanah  (in  the  annual  Council)  on 

the  tenth  day  of  the  month. 
Amos  67.  Therefore  shall  they  go  captive  with  the  com- 
pany of  exiles  (Berosh  golim). 
Prov.    1 21-      At   the   concourse    (Rosh)    of   streets   she 

crieth,  at  the  leaves  of  the  city-gates  she  uttereth  her 

words. 
Prov.    1323.    Much   food   is   in   the  tillage  of  the  just 


THE   WITNESS    OF    LITERATURE  55 

(Rashim)  but  there  is  that  is  destroyed  for  lack  of 

judgment  (Mishpat). 
Mic.  3ii.  Her  Rashim  (courts)  judge  for  reward;  her 

priests  teach  for  hire  and  her  prophets  divine  for 

money. 
Ps.    1089.    Ephraim    is    the    strength    of    my    Council 

(Rosh) ;  Judah  is  my  lawgiver  (mehokek). 
Job  1 17.  Three  bands  (Rashim). 
Job  22i2.  Behold  the  company  (Rosh)  of  the  stars,  how 

high  they  are! 
Ezra  96-  Our  iniquities  reach  to  the  Rosh  (Council)  on 

high  and  our  trespass  is  grown  up  to  Heaven. 
I  Chron.  1224.  Rashim  (companies)  of  soldiers. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  but  this  ques- 
tion :  Does  Am  ha-aretz  mean  the  common  people  or  does 
it  mean  a  body  of  delegates  akin  to  a  Parliament  or  to  a 
Congress  ? 

And  now  it  remains  for  me  to  sum  up.  In  doing  so 
I  shall  not  confine  myself  to  the  evidence  above  produced. 
The  whole  mass  of  data  from  the  beginning  to  the  catas- 
trophe of  586  will  be  taken  into  account,  and  the  con- 
clusions formed  therefrom  will  be  given  so  as  to  make 
clear  my  notion  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  constitutional 
history  of  Israel  should  be  viewed. 

One  digression  I  shall,  however,  permit  myself.  As 
the  whole  of  the  argument  tends  to  prove  that  the  San- 
hedrin  which  we  know  of,  had  its  roots  in  the  very 
beginnings  of  the  Hebrew  people,  so  in  all  probability  the 
Oral  Law  that  we  know  had  its  origin  in  the  earliest 
times.  Naturally  it  developed,  as  all  common  law  does, 
by  slow  gradations  and  small  accretions,  but  that  it  had 
a  definite  form  many  hundred  years  before  ever  a 
Mishnah  was  written,  seems  obvious  and  inevitable.  I 
shall  cite  but  one  example  and  that  from  the  first  book 
of  Kings  3i6-28- 


56  THE   AM    HA-ARETZ 

It  is  the  celebrated  judgment  of  Solomon.  Two 
women  claimed  the  possession  of  a  child,  each  declaring 
herself  its  mother.  The  question  to  be  decided  was, 
Which  has  the  right  of  it?  Witnesses  there  were  none, 
so  that  the  matter  was  left  in  equilibrium.  An  arbitrary 
judgment  at  the  mere  will  of  the  king  was  according  to 
Hebrew  ideas  unthinkable.  He  had  fervently  prayed  to 
God  to  give  him  a  ''hearing''  heart  to  judge  (i  Kings 
39),  and  the  prayer  had  been  granted  that  he  become  wise 
''to  hear''  mishpat  (312.13).  So  is  the  function  of  the 
true  judge  defined :  "  Hear  both  sides  and  judge  aright " 
(Deut.  lie).  The  Court  had  heard  the  two  women,  but 
as  their  statements  neutralized  each  other,  there  appeared 
to  be  no  means  of  judgment  save  mere  favoritism. 

And  yet  Solomon  without  hesitation  pronounced  a 
judgment  as  formal  as  if  it  had  been  read  from  a  volume 
of  Precedents,  reciting  the  averments  of  each  party  and 
decreeing  a  division  of  the  child  into  equal  halves,  one  to 
each. 

In  later  times  when  the  precedents  on  all  questions  were 
codified  in  the  Mishnah,  there  was  inserted  in  Baba 
Metzia,  ch.  i,  §1,  a  paragraph  which  startlingly  resembles 
Solomon's  law.  The  question  there  is.  What  is  to  be- 
come of  a  divisible  piece  of  personal  property  which  two 
claim  with  apparently  equal  right,  and  the  solution  is  an 
avowal  of  the  inability  of  the  law  to  do  exact  justice,  and 
hence  as  a  compromise  the  parties  share  equally. 

The  similarity  of  the  phraseology  between  the  two  in- 
stances is  astonishing,  and  the  choice  is  left  us  to  believe, 
either  that  the  Mishnah,  eight  hundred  years  later,  copied 
this  form,  or  that  in  Solomon's  time  the  law  for  dividing 
property  under  such  circumstances  was  already  known, 
and  that,  for  want  of  law  or  precedent  to  govern  the 
puzzling  case  before  him,  he  with  audacious  humor  pre- 
tended to  believe  that  the  rule  concerning  inanimate  goods 
would  apply  to  a  living  being. 


THE   WITNESS    OF    LITERATURE  57 

The  first  supposition  seems  the  easier  to  accept.  Re- 
flection, however,  tends  to  make  it  more  and  more  im- 
probable. The  idea  of  cutting"  in  half  a  baby  smiling  at 
you,  for  the  purpose  of  solving  a  legal  puzzle,  would  not 
occur  to  a  man,  especially  not  to  a  royal  gentleman  like 
Solomon.  And  even  impish  suggestions  are  more  likely 
to  have  some  associated  idea  behind  them  than  to  be 
merely  grasped  out  of  the  air. 

The  second  supposition  is  more  in  accord  with  human 
nature.  The  division  of  the  child  would  then  be  sug- 
gested by  a  well-known  principle  which  everybody  recog- 
nizes, but  which  nobody  would  ever  think  of  applying  to 
the  case  in  hand.  Driven  into  a  corner  the  king  in  a 
flash  sees  how  it  can  be  used  to  bare  the  souls  of  the 
parties,  lets  fly  his  arrow  and  hits.  It  is  the  triumph  of 
wit  and  psychology. 

Should  the  latter  view  be  accepted  we  have  in  the  Book 
of  Kings  the  earliest  Mishnah  yet  identified,  the  incident 
itself  going  back  a  thousand  years  before  the  Common 
Era,  and  the  book  in  which  it  is  recorded  being  by  the 
best  critics  assigned  to  600  B.  C. 

This  view  moreover  supports  our  main  thesis.  If 
some  unwritten  law  which  the  Sanhedrin  administered, 
may  be  traced  back  a  thousand  years,  there  is  nothing  im- 
probable in  supposing  that  the  Tribunal  itself  may  have 
had  a  precjirsor,  equally  ancient. 

Strange  as  the  view  may  appear  there  is  really  nothing 
improbable  in  it.  All  written  law  is  preceded  by  oral 
law,  and  so  soon  as  written,  the  process  of  making  new 
oral  law,  however  sternly  inhibited,  at  once  begins.  The 
difficulty  of  applying  this  principle  to  the  Jewish  oral 
law,  arises  only  from  the  unscientific  notion  held  by 
many,  that  all  such  accretions  are  equally  old.  So  soon 
as  we  understand  the  true  nature  of  oral  law,  it  becomes 
obvious  that  some  of  it  must  be  of  immense  antiquity,  and 
that  as  to  it,  the  old  notion  that  it  is  coeval  with  the 


58  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

Torah  is  not,  as  has  often  been  supposed,  an  absurd 
extravagance. 

And  now,  to  conclude.  If  you  find  that  the  new  mean- 
ings proposed  for  Am  ha-aretz,  for  Am,  for  Rosh,  give  a 
clearer  and  more  intelligent  sense  to  the  passages  in 
which  they  occur,  than  do  the  meanings  heretofore  as- 
signed to  them,  the  inference  is  easy  that  the  old  mean- 
ings are  wrong  and  that  the  new  meanings  are  at  least  a 
step  in  the  right  direction.  Moreover,  if,  following  this 
path,  you  find  that  not  only  was  there  a  Parliament,  but 
that  it  rose  from  small  beginnings  until  it  reached  a 
worthy  development,  you  may  fairly  conclude  that  the 
subject  is  at  least  worth  re-examination. 

The  Parliament  of  Israel  had  its  humble  beginnings  at 
the  city  gate,  where  the  elders  of  the  town,  "comers  to 
the  gate,"  sat  to  hold  the  Town  Council  and  the  Muni- 
cipal Court.  Gradually  there  was  evolved,  from  this 
familiar  institution,  the  tribal  Am  which  dealt  with  the 
larger  matters  of  the  district  inhabited  by  the  tribe. 
Friendliness  among  neighbors  and  the  necessity  of  de- 
fence against  enemies  produced  alliances  between  several 
tribes,  and  finally  there  resulted  a  union  of  all  or  nearly 
all  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Then  only  could  there  have  been 
formed  a  general  gathering  of  delegates,  an  Am  of  the 
land,  our  Am  ha-aretz. 

The  period  of  the  Judges  was  a  time  of  probation  and 
preparation  for  national  unity,  and  it  was  the  last  and 
the  greatest  of  them,  Samuel,  who  began  to  put  this  idea 
into  practical  effect.  With  bitter  heart-burnings  and 
regrets,  he  executed  the  plan  which  he  knew  to  be  an 
advance  in  the  greatness  of  his  people,  but  concerning 
which  he  feared  that  it  might  lead  to  a  diminution  of 
their  liberties. 

It  became  his  duty  and  his  privilege  to  convene  the 
first  Congress  of  United  Israel,  the  Congress  (Rosh  ha- 
Keruim)   which  elected  Israel's  first  king,  Saul  of  the 


THE   WITNESS    OF   LITERATURE  59 

tribe  of  Benjamin.  The  proceedings  of  that  body  I  have 
endeavored  to  delineate.  Then  followed  a  period  of  con- 
flict between  the  house  of  Saul  and  the  house  of  David 
and  between  various  members  of  the  Davidic  house,  in  all 
of  which  the  national  Am  exhibited  a  certain  instability 
in  the  presence  of  tribal  Ams  which  were  still  active,  until 
finally  Solomon  succeeded  in  establishing  a  real  union. 
At  his  death,  however,  this  temporary  unity  was  lost 
forever.  The  kingdom  of  Israel  was,  by  secession,  di- 
vided into  a  Northern  and  a  Southern  Kingdom,  the 
latter  of  which,  the  smaller,  remained  true  to  the  house 
of  David,  while  the  former  founded  new  royal  families. 

The  Am  ha-aretz  persisted  in  both  kingdoms  till  their 
overthrow,  the  former  in  the  seventh,  the  latter  in  the 
sixth  ventury,  B.  C.  The  data  concerning  the  Southern 
Kingdom  are  fuller  than  those  of  the  Northern.  From 
them  we  conclude  that  originally  the  Am  ha-aretz  was 
composed  of  persons  of  note  selected  to  represent  the 
various  districts,  especially  the  cities  of  the  land;  that 
at  first  their  opinions  and  habits  inclined  them  to  aristo- 
cracy; that  there  was  a  gradual  growth  of  democratic 
opinion  which  powerfully  influenced  king,  nobles  and  Am 
ha-aretz ;  that  this  resulted  in  the  rise  of  a  great  popular 
party  which  was  called  Dallim  (paupers),  a  nickname 
probably  applied  to  them  by  their  adversaries  and  then 
accepted  as  a  title  of  honor;  that  the  great  leaders  of 
this  democratic  party  were  the  writing  prophets ;  that  the 
aristocratic  or  Tory  party  was  called  Elim  (the  great), 
and  that  these  factions  were  divided  on  momentous 
public  questions. 

It  would  appear  further  that  the  upper  house  of  twelve 
(or  ten)  Sarim  mostly  held  with  the  Elim  and  were 
nearer  to  the  throne  than  the  Am  ha-aretz.  In  political 
and  in  judicial  matters,  both  houses  sat  and  voted  as 
one  body,  the  order  of  procedure  being  that  the  Am 
ha-aretz   met   first,   and   when   called   to  order,   sent   a 

5 


60  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

message  to  the  Sarim  that  they  were  prepared  for  busi« 
ness,  whereupon  the  latter  left  their  Hall  and  joined  the 
session,  wherein  a  special  place  was  assigned  to  them. 

The  Prophets  whom  we  know  (the  writing  Prophets) 
were  the  Tribunes  of  the  people,  and  their  function  was 
to  criticize  all  public  and  private  wrongs.  King,  priests, 
prophets,  nobles,  the  Am  ha-aretz,  the  plutocracy,  all 
came  in  for  their  censure.  Though  disliked  by  all  these 
classes,  they  were  feared ;  otherwise  their  amazing  bold- 
ness of  speech  would  have  cost  them  their  heads.  And 
they  could  not  have  been  greatly  feared  by  the  classes, 
if  there  had  not  been  behind  them  a  popular  support 
which  was  formidable,  and  a  public  opinion  of  the  masses 
which  was  controlling. 

It  is  probable  that  in  the  early  days  the  king  himself 
presided  over  the  joint  meeting  of  the  Am  ha-aretz  and 
the  Sarim  (or  Nesiim;  in  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
Horim).  Afterwards  that  duty  appears  to  have  de- 
volved on  the  heir-apparent,  and  during  some  periods  on 
the  Chief  Priest. 

In  delivering  judgments  the  form  was  to  render  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Sarim  and  the  Zekenim. 

For  a  long  period  the  great  question  before  the  country 
was  whether  it  was  wiser  to  be  friendly  with  Babylon  or 
with  Egypt.  While  true  patriots  were  anxious  to  avoid 
all  alliances,  the  problem  could  not  be  so  solved  or  evaded. 
Jeremiah,  for  instance,  was  for  the  Babylonian  alliance, 
while  the  Court  was  all  for  Egypt.  With  the  Court 
went  the  Elim,  while  the  Dallim  followed  Jeremiah. 

At  the  final  catastrophe,  the  Babylonian  victors  were 
disposed  to  reorganize  the  government,  though  only  on 
condition  that  the  Royal  House  and  its  Egypt-loving 
followers  should  be  eliminated.  Hence  there  was  no 
king  named  to  succeed  Zedekiah.  The  country  was  to 
have  a  more  democratic  administration  under  the  viceroy 
Gedaliah,  with  a  Dallim  Parliament,  presided  over  by 


THE   WITNESS    OF    LITERATURE  61 

Jeremiah.  The  plan  miscarried,  because  the  Royalist 
party  was  able  to  muster  a  large  force  of  freebooting 
soldiers,  who  murdered  Gedaliah  and  carried  off  Jeremiah 
to  Egypt. 

This  hasty  and  scanty  review  suffices  to  show  that 
some  of  our  pet  opinions  need  revision.  Jeremiah  and 
the  other  Prophets,  when  they  addressed  the  Am  ha-aretz, 
were  speaking  for  the  masses  to  the  classes,  and  on  behalf 
of  the  public  they  demanded  an  improvement  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  state  and  in  the  morality  of  the  classes. 

From  this  point  of  view  it  may  be  concluded,  that  the 
Jewish  people  at  large  had  as  keen  an  outlook  and  as 
wide  a  vision,  in  political  as  in  religious  affairs,  and 
that  while  the  modern  monotheistic  conception  of  the 
universe  is  largely  the  product  of  their  genius,  so  the 
modern  conception  of  a  rational  democratic  representa- 
tive government  owes  its  origin  to  the  same  ancestry. 
The  remarkable  phenomenon  that  the  English  people 
and  their  American  descendants,  the  only  nations  that 
have  really  comprehended  and  utilized  the  principles  of 
parliamentary  government,  took  the  Jews'  Bible  as  their 
text-book  in  times  of  stress  and  storm,  will  thus  be  ex- 
plained, and  this  explanation  will  make  it  clear  that  the 
Gerusia,  the  great  Synagogue,  and  the  Sanhedrin  were 
not  mushrooms  that  sprang  up  over  night,  but  giant  trees 
whose  seed  was  planted  centuries  before  in  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  the  people. 

The  question  naturally  arises  as  to  the  cause  of  the 
downfall  of  the  Jewish  state.  If  Israel  was  wise  poli- 
tically, why  was  it  not  successful?  The  parallel  ques- 
tion is  just  as  appropriate :  If  Israel  was  wise  religiously, 
why  did  its  established  church  fall? 

The  answer  lies  in  the  divergent  estimates  of  what 
constitutes  success.  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Rome, 
where  are  they?  If  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  a  stately  church  and  a  prosperous  state  are  the  true 


62  THE    AM    HA-ARETZ 

measure,  then  Israel  has  failed  both  in  religion  and  in 
politics.  The  colossal  power  of  Rome  destroyed  the  ma- 
terial prosperity  of  both  institutions.  If  the  establish- 
ment of  principles  is  the  true  criterion  of  success,  then 
Israel  has  triumphed  gloriously.  As  regards  its  church — 
Christianity  and  Islam  are  both  her  children,  and  though 
they  may,  at  times,  have  behaved  unfilially,  they  have 
never  wavered  in  carrying  the  banner  of  pure  Theism, 
as  against  a  corrupt  and  corrupting  heathenism.  And 
so  also  with  regard  to  the  state.  A  puny  country  like 
Judea  could  not  stand  before  Rome.  If  it  were  re- 
established now,  it  could  not  successfully  resist  the 
formidable  armies  and  navies  of  any  of  the  great  em- 
pires of  to-day.  This  only  proves,  however,  that  ten 
men  can  overcome  one.  But  the  political  principles 
which  our  ancestors  were  working  out  have  become  the 
common  property  of  the  civilized  world,  and  tend  daily 
to  further  expansion. 

There  is  no  historical  record  of  any  other  nation  which 
as  early  as  a  millennium  before  the  present  era  had 
overcome  the  forces  both  of  despotism  and  of  unbridled 
democracy.  Israel  alone  had,  with  prophetic  instinct, 
anticipated  the  religious  and  the  political  development 
which  was  to  come  into  its  own  after  thousands  of  years. 
By  a  happy  coincidence  it  gave  to  its  representative  body 
the  very  designation  by  which  that  of  England  has  for  a 
thousand  years  been  known,  for  the  Am  ha-aretz  of 
Palestine  is  in  name  the  equivalent  of  that  body  so 
gloriously  distinguished  in  English  history — the  Com- 
mons of  the  Land — ^the  house  of  Commons — the  Beth 
ha-Am. 


INDEXES 


BIBLICAL  PASSAGES   CONSIDERED 


Genesis. 


PAGE      Leviticus  (continued) 


237 16 

23io   17 

2310.18   17 

2312   16 

23i3 16 

403 33 

4O13 45,  46 

4O19.19 45,  46,  47 


4O20  . 
4O01  . 
4O22   . 

Exodus. 

3ie.i8   • 

4io   • . 

4l6     .. 

429-31 
1221       . 
IOis-22 

IQt.s  . 
198    .. 

2O16      . 

22,7  . 
243     .. 

24t  .. 
2921    . 

2926  . 

2927  . 
3O12      . 

Leviticus. 

427    •  • 

732  .. 

733  •  • 

734  .. 
1621  . 
2O2  .  . 
2O4     .  . 


46 
46 
46 


7 
7 
7 
7 
8 

9 

8 

8 

44 

9 

8 

8 

33 

33 

33 

45 


16 

'33 
33 
33 
S3 
16 
16 


24l4     . 

2414-16 

24i6    . 


Numbers. 
i^  . 


I16   .. 
I18   •.. 
1O0-8  . 
1O4.3  . 

Ilie  . 
II16.17 
II17  . 
II24    . 

122-15 

149 .. 
162.2  . 
2014-21 
2019  . 

2 1 21-25 
269     .. 

278    .. 

279 .. 

27io  • 
27ii    . 

27l6.17 
27l7  . 
2721  . 
366.7    . 


Deuteronomy. 
iifi   


i3io 
1 61s 


PAGE 
..    53 

53 
53 


52, 


45 

32 

8 

8 


8 

15 

32 

II 

II 

II 

32 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

53 

9 


page 

56 

$2 

9 

177 52 

1714-20  10,  35 

I7i5   34 

1921   44 


66        BIBLICAL    PASSAGES    CONSIDERED 


203 54 

2I1-9 53 

299 9 

3I28   9 

335 54 

3321   54 

Joshua. 

iio   9 

833   9 

Ps-ie II 

9l8    II 

22io-34     II 

24i 9 

2422-24     ° 

Judges. 

934   54 

93T 45,  54 

943   54 

T,  Samuel. 

8n-i8    10 

9i2   34 

922  30,  33,  44 

923 30,  33 

924.24       30,     32,     33 

lOiT   34 

1O24 30,  35 

1O25 30,  35 

iiu   32 

1317.18    32 

282 54 

2  Samuel.                              page 
38 54 

I  Kings. 

39 56 

3l0-28    55 

3.2   56 

3i3   56 

lOiT      26 

I5i3   52 


2Ii-T     42 

2I9 44 

2iu   44 

2I12   44 

2I13.13    43 

2115  43 

2116   43 

2  Kings. 

23 54 

25 54 

9i4   54 

TOi-u 43 

II  19,  22 

1I5   23,  24 

1 16.6.6.6.6.6 22,    23,  24 

II7.T.7      23,  25 

II9 23 

IIl4      16 

II15.I5       26 

Ilie    22 

1118  16 

1119  16 

II20 16,   21 

I2ii    19 

1421    27 

155    16,   27 

157 27 

i6iB   16 

I618  25 

2I23  27 

2I24.24.24   16,  27 

223 40 

223 40 

22,0    40 

22i2-2325    40 

236.6      51,     52 

2330 16,    27 

2335 16,    27 

24i4 16,-7 

24i5    27 

253  16, 28 

25i8-2i    53 

25,9.19 16, 28 


BIBLICAL    PASSAGES    CONSIDERED        67 


2  Kings,  (continued)  page 

2S22   28 

2525   28 

Isaiah. 

iio   51 

228 26 

5I20   54 

Jeremiah. 

I18 16,  49 

26,-s 37 

262 41 

26, 41 

263 41 

269   ZT,  41 

2610   2>1 

26n.u.ii     38,   41 

2612.12    41 

2612-15    39 

26i6.10.i6 41 

2616-19    40 

26„.i7     ^I 

2618  41 

2619  41 

2620-23   39 

2623   51 

2624.24    41 

2926    20 

316 54 

3I39   52 

32t-i5 18 

34i9 16,  50 

36  31 

366 44 

369.9 44 

3610-12    ••  40 

372 16,  47,  50 

378-10 48 

37i3-i9    48 

38. 48 

385 48 

387-20  48 

398 28 

399 33 

39io   28 


Jeremiah,    (continued)         page 

39i4   28 

4O5 28 

4O6 28 

4421 16,  50 

4619-26    48 

52e 16 

5224 50,  53 

5225.25.25 16,  50,  53 

5226   53 

5227   53 

5231 45,  47 

EZEKIEL. 

It 49 

726    49 

727 16,  49 

I2i9 16,  51 

I7i3    2^] 

2I26   54 

2226-29      49 

222, 16,  49 

382 54 

383 54 

39i 54 

39i3  16 

4O1 54 

45ie 16,  50 

4S22 16,  50 

461 50 

462 50 

463   16,  50 

468 50 

469   16,  50 

4610  51 

Amos. 

67 54 

MiCAH. 

3ii  55 

Habakkuk. 

I3 47 

I 47 

Haggai. 

24 50 


68 


BIBLICAL   PASSAGES    CONSIDERED 


Psalms. 

10732  51 

1089 55 

Proverbs. 

I21  54 

1323  54 

Job.  page 

iiT  55 

He 51 

12. 51 

I2l8-24      50 

1224      16 

22^  55 

Ezra. 

96 55 

The  Mishnah.  page 

Baba  Metzia.    ii 56 

Yoma.    64 53 

Middoth.    5i 31 

Sanhedrin. 

I5 35 

24 35 

64 52 

Talmud  Yerushalmi. 
Sanhedrin. 
Perek  i  Hal.  2 53 


Nehemiah. 

1246   45 

1  Chronicles. 

1224   55 

i6t 45 

2  Chronicles. 

I5i6  52 

23   19 

23a3  16 

2320  16 

2321  16 

24i5  20 

24i6  20 

2420  20 

2621  16 

29i6  52 

3O14  52 

3325.25       16 

Talmud  Yerushalmi           page 
(continued) 
Perek  i  Hal.  4 35 

Talmud  Babll 

Yoma.    67b  53 

Sanhedrin.     i6a  53 

The  New  Testament. 
Matthew.    1614 36 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Aaron 7,  8,  33 

Abahu    53 

Abraham    17,  18 

Admath  Yisrael  (Am) 51 

Ahab 14,  19,  41,  42,  43 

Ahaz,  King  of  Judah 25 

Ahaziah  19 

Ahikam   40 

Ahuzah    17 

Amar  ha-Cohen  26 

Amaziah    27 

Am  ha-aretz 15,  16,  19,  23,  49 

Political  Power  5f,  17 

Judicial  Power 16,  36 

Its  President   I7,  28 

President  sits  in  the  middle 17,  28,  35,  51 

Of  the  Hittites  17 

Called  "  The  House  " 27 

Enthrones  Saul  29f 

Joash    I9f 

Azariah   27 

Josiah 27 

Jehoahaz  2^ 

Heir-apparent  its  President  27 

President  called  Shophet   27 

Condemns  King  Amon's  Ministers 27 

Pays  tribute  of  gold  and  silver 27 

Elim   of,  carried   captive 2^ 

Dallim  of,  left  at  home 27 

No  bread  for,  in  famine 28 

Its  Beth  ha-Am  burned   28 

Its  Grand  Marshal  slain 28 

Sixty  of  its  members  slain  28 

Its  Dallim  endowed  with  confiscated  estates  of  its  Elim 28 

See  also : 

Admath  Yisrael. 

Aretz. 

Baim. 

Bens  Israel. 


70  INDEX 


PAGE 

Cities  of  Judah. 

Cohen  ha-rosh. 

Col  Am-Yehudah. 

Col  ha-Am. 

Col  Kehal  ha-Am. 

Col  Yehudah. 

Comers  from  the  cities  of  Judah. 

Comers  to  the  City  Gate. 

Edah. 

Ha-Am. 

Ha-Bayith. 

Ish  Yehudah.      ^ 

Ish  Yisrael. 

Rosh. 

Rosh  ha-Keruim. 

Rosh  ha-shanah. 

Sarim  and  Am. 

Yoshebe  Yerushalayim. 

Yoshebim. 

Zekenim  and  Horim. 

Zikne  ha-aretz. 

Amon,  King,  slain  by  Ministers 2.7 

Amon,  His  ministers  slain  by  Am 27 

Amoraim  53 

Amorites  11 

Amos  14 

Ancient  Temple  Law  26 

Anshe  ha-ir  21 

Antiochus  the  Great  12 

Aretz  ( for  Am  ha-Aretz) 27 

Asaph    45 

Assyria    13,  61 

Athaliah,  her  downfall 19 

Azariah,  King,  leper,  dies  27 

Azazel    52f 

Baal-worship    19,  20 

Babylon 13,  15,  27,  28,  29,  40,  47,  60,  61 

Bairn  (delegates  to  Am) 31 

Barracks  on  Temple  Hill 23 

Of  the  Royal  Guards 25,  26 

See  Massach,  Masach,  beth  ha-Yaar,   Musach  ha-Shabbath 

Baruch 31 

Bayith  (See  ha-Bayith) 

Beds  of  Pardon 47 


INDEX  71 

PAGE 

Bene  ha-Am  (See  Keber  bene  ha-Am) 

Bene  Israel   ii 

Berith 20 

Berosh  ha-Am 44,  45,  54 

Beth  ha-Am 28,  29,  62 

Beth  ha-Yaar  (See  House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon) 22,  26 

Beth  Massach 23,  24,  26 

See  also:  Musach  ha-Shabbath. 
Masach  of  Judah. 

Blasphemy  38,  52f 

Biichler   15 

Caleb  10,  15 

Canaan 10 

Census  (See  Nsa  Rosh). 

Cities  of  Judah  (Am) 41 

City  Am  17,  18 

Cohen  ha-Rosh   20,  50 

Col  Am-Yehudah  41 

Col  ha-Am  41 

Col  Kehal  ha-Am  41 

Col  Yehudah  (Am)   40,  41 

Comers  from  the  Cities  of  Judah  (Am) 44 

Comers  to  the  City  Gate 17,  58 

Commons — of  England  62 

House  of   62 

Constitutional  Limitations 9 

In  Northern  Kingdom 41,  43 

In  Southern  Kingdom  40,  47f,  59 

Council  (Am,  Zekenim). 

Universally  known 7 

Bi-Cameral   6,  8,  38f,  SQf 

Dallath 27,  59,  60 

Dallim 28,  59,  60 

Daughters  of  Zelophehad  9 

David  15,  45,  59 

Diplomatic  usage  10 

East  Jordanic  Tribes  11 

Edah  7,  8,  10,  11,  15,  32,  58 

Form  of  resolution    8 

Is  the  High  Court 9 

Moses  its  President 9 

Political  Powers    10 


72  INDEX 

PAGE 

Edom  10 

Egypt 10,  13,  28,  39,  43,  6i 

Elders  (See  Zekenim). 

EHakim   27 

Elijah    36,  43 

Elim 27,  28,  59,  60 

Elnathan   39 

Elohim  (Judges)   9 

Eloquence  necessary  for  Nasi 7 

Ephraim    41 

Ephron 18 

Evil-Merodach    47 

Ezekiel 13,  50,  5i 

Ezra   13 

False  Prophets   14 

Forms  and  Formulae. 

Amar  ha-Cohen,  q,  v. 

The  priest  declares  =  The  law  is  : 
Deed 

to  Abraham. 

(See  Am  ha-aretz  of  Hittites.) 
Edah's  adoption  of  resolution. 

Na'aseh  etc.  =  Carried,  It  is  a  vote. 

(See  Edah) 
Ha-Am  Karathi,  q.  v. 

(Form  of  opening  session) 
Judgment,  q.  v. 

In  Jeremiah's  Case. 

Solomon's. 
Kiru  tzom,  q.  v. 
Precedents,  q.  v. 

Citing. 
Proceedings  of  Assembly. 

See  Saul,  Moed, 

Tabbach,  Rosh  ha-Keruim. 

Gates  in  South  Wall  of  Temple  Court 22 

Sur   22,  24,  25 

Ratzim  22,  23,  24 

Palace  Gate  22,  24 

New  Gate  Z7 

Gedaliah,  Viceroy 28,  40,  60 

Slain 28 

Gemariah    31 


INDEX  73 

PAGE 

Gerusia 12,  6l 

Gibborim,  Royal  Guard  24,  25,  39 

Gibeonites 11 

Government   8 

Grand  Marshal  of  Am  ha-aretz  28 

Great  Synagogue  12,  61 

Guards.     See  Gibborim,  Royal  Guards,  Temple  Guards. 

Ha- Am,  short  for  Am  ha-aretz 40 

Ha- Am  Karathi.     Formula  to  open  the  session 30,  34 

Ha-Bayith  (the  Am)   27 

Haggai    50 

Hebron    17 

Hezekiah  40 

High  Priest 6,  19 

Hilkiah    40 

Hittites    17 

Horim    42,  43,  60 

Hosea  14,  43 

House  (the  Am)   27 

House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon 22 

Inheritance  Laws  9 

Inter-tribal  relations  9 

Isaiah    14,  51 

Ish-Yehudah    (Am)    31 

Ish-Yisrael  (Am)    11 

Ishmael   28 

Israel  5,  7,  11,  13,  29,  59 

Jehoahaz,  enthroned  and  dethroned  27 

Jehoiachin,  King,  captured  27,  29 

Released  from  prison 47 

Jehoiada    I9f 

Jehoiakim,  King  by  Egypt's  power 27,  37,  39 

Exacts  tribute  from  Am  ha-aretz  27 

Jehoram,  King  of  Judah   19 

Jehosheba 19 

Jehu,  King  of  Israel 43 

Jeremiah  14,  28,  31,  z^,  38,  40,  41.  48 

Trial  for  treason  36f 

His  defence  39 

His  acquittal   41 

Jerusalem 19,  20,  21,  26,  27,  28,  37,  41 

Jethro 8 


74  INDEX 

PAGE 

Jezebel    IQ,  42 

Joash,  King  ipf 

Job  50,  51 

Jonathan  ben  Eleazar 53 

Joshua 10,  II,  12,  15 

Josiah 27,  37,  40 

Jotham,  President  of  the  House 27 

Shophet  of  the  Am  ha-aretz 2^ 

King  27 

Judges  9>  12 

Judgment  in  Jeremiah's  case,  form  of 41 

by  Solomon   56 

Judicial  Function   9,  36 

Kari   2Z 

Keber  bene  ha-Am  5if 

Kedor-Laomer    17 

Keruim  (See  Rosh  ha-Keruim). 

Kibre  bene  ha-Am 5if 

Kidron    52,  53 

Kimchi,  David   44 

Kimchi,  Joseph  44 

Kimchi,  Moses    44 

King,  Constitutional  Monarch  10 

King's  Law   10 

Samuel  writes  it 34 

Travestied  10 

Tombs  of  20 

King's  palace    21 

Kiru  tzom  (Convoke  the  Assembly) 42,  44 

Land  Laws 9 

Levi 8 

Leze  majesty  9,  41 

Lishcah  Meeting-Hall  30,  31,  38,  40 

Rechabites  meet  there  with  Committee  of  Am 31 

Literary  Allusions. 

Am  ha-aretz 49f 

Rosh  50,  53f 

Luzzatto    44 

Machpelah    18 

Magog  54 

Manah    zz,  34 

Masach  of  Judah    25 

Barracks  of  Royal  Guard  25 

See  also  House  of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon. 


INDEX  75 

PAGE 

Beth  ha-Ya'ar. 

Beth  Massach. 

Musach  ha-Shabbath. 
Massach  (See  Beth  Massach). 

Mattan,  the  Baal  priest  20 

Mattaniah  28 

Megiddo    27 

Melech  6 

Micah  40 

Mikneh    17 

Miriam 8 

Mishnah,  Early  55,  57 

Mishpachah    9 

Mishpat  Maveth  (Death  Penalty) 30,  37 

Mizpeh  34 

Moed  30,  Z^,  34 

Moses  7,  8,  9,  10,  36,  44 

Musach  ha-Shabbath    26 

Barracks  of  Temple  Guards 26 

Na'aseh   8 

Na'aseh  ve-nishma'   8 

Na'avod— Nishma'  8 

Naboth,  Trial  of   4if 

Nasi    6,  9 

President  of  Edah  7,  9 

President  of  Sanhedrin  35 

National  Assembly  (See  Edah). 

Nebuchadnezzar 27,  28,  29,  2>3> 

Nebuzaradan   28 

Nechoh  (Pharaoh)  27,  29 

Nehemiah   13 

Nesiim  6,  8,  11,  60 

New  Gate  (Sarim's  Seat)    37 

Nishar 30,  34 

Nsa  Rosh  45 

Taking  the  Census 45 

Appealing  a  case  46 

Numbering  tribes    8 

Oral  Law  55f 

Palace    25,  26,  27 

Palestine i5,  I7 

Pardon    47 

6     , 


76  INDEX 

PAGE 

Pardoning  Power  of  King  Limited 47 

Parliament  14,  16,  17 

Political  Powers   7,  I5 

Judicial  Powers  9,  I5 

Parliament  House  Burned  28 

Paschal  Service   8 

People  of  the  Land   21 

Pharaoh  Nechoh  27,  29 

Phineas   11 

Place  of  Execution  52 

Precedents   39,  56 

Cited  in  Jeremiah's  trial  39 

Priests 8,  I2f 

Convoke  the  Edah  by  trumpets  8 

Prophets  I2f,  60 

False    14 

Writing    14,  60 

Psalms  51 

Ratzim  (Temple  Guards)   22,  25 

See  also  Gates. 

Rechabites    31 

Riblah    28 

Rome    61,  62 

Rosh  31,  2>^,  49,  53 

Of  Singers  45 

Receive  psalms  45 

Rosh  ha-Keruim  (Am)   30,  44,  58 

Rosh  ha-shanah  54 

Rothstein    15 

Royal  Guards  (See  Gibborim). 

Sabbath   23 

Comers  into — Relieved  squad 23,  24 

Goers    out   of — Relieving   squad 23,  24 

Samuel 29 

Sanhedrin  12 

Its  functions   35 

Meet  in  Lishcah    31 

Sat  in  semi-circle   35 

Sar  ha-tzabah  captured 28 

Sarah  17 

Sarim   (Upper  House)    31,  40,  41,  59 

Sit  with  Zekenim  Z7,  Z^ 

(See  Horim) 

Control  King  Zedekiah 48 


INDEX  77 

PAGE 

Sarim  ve-col  ha-Am   41 

Saul  first  King  of  Israel 2gi,  58 

Scapegoat   53 

Sefarim  42 

Sepher  ha-Torah   40 

Septuagint    S3 

Sessions 45 

Shaphan    < 40 

Shemaiah    39 

Shiloh  1 1,  37 

Shok    23,  34 

Shophet   6 

President  of  the  Edah  6,  9,  10 

President  of  the  Am  ha-aretz 27 

Shoterim   9 

Sihon  the  Amorite  King 11 

Smith,  George  Adam 21,  22 

Sofer  of  Am  40 

Solomon's  Judgment 56 

Is  travesty  of  early  Mishnah  56 

Stade  21,  22 

Sur  (See  Gates). 

Tabbach  at  Samuel's  Court 30,  31,  32,  S3 

Tabbachim  Sar  ha-  ^^ 

Rab-  S3 

Temple  21 

Burned 28 

Hill   19,  21,  25,  37 

Guards  (See  Ratzim). 

Testimony,   Power  of    28 

Tiglath-Pileser   25 

Tombs  of  the  Kings  20 

Tribal  Am 58 

Tribal  Lands,  not  to  be  aliened  to  other  tribe 9 

Tribunes  of  the  People 14,  60 

Tyre 43 

Uriah,  Prophet    39,  5 1 

Westland  11 

Witnesses  43 

Words  defined   (which  see). 
Admath  Yisrael. 
ha-Am. 


78  INDEX 

Words  defined  (which  see) — continued. 
Am  ha-aretz. 
Aretz. 
Bairn. 
ha-Bayith. 

Bene  ha-Am  (Kibre). 

Bene  Israel. 

Berosh  ha-Am. 

Beth  ha-Am. 

Beth  ha-Ya'ar. 

Beth  Massach. 

Cities  of  Judah. 

City  Am. 

Cohen  ha-rosh. 

Col  Am-Yehudah. 

Col  ha-Am. 

Col  Kehal  ha-Am. 

Col  Yehudah. 

Comers  from  the  cities  of  Judah. 

Comers  to  the  City  Gate. 

Dallath. 

Dallim. 

Edah. 

Elim. 

Ha-Am. 

Ha-Am  Karathi. 

Ha-Bayith. 

Horim. 

House. 

Ish  Yehudah. 

Ish  Yisrael. 

Keber  bene  ha-Am. 

Keruim. 

Kibre  bene  ha-Am. 

Kiru  tzom. 

Lishcah. 

Manah. 

Masach. 

Massach. 

Moed. 

Musach  ha-shabbath. 

Nasi. 

Nesiim. 

Nishar. 

Nsa  Rosh. 

People  of  the  Land. 


INDEX  79 

PAGE 

Words  defined  (which  see) — continued. 
Ratzim. 
Rosh. 

Rosh  ha-Keruim. 
Rosh  ha-shanah. 
Sabbath. 
Sarim. 

Sarim  and  Am. 
Shok. 
Shophet. 
Sofer. 
Tabbach. 
Tabbachim  Sar  ha- 

Rab- 
Yom  tzom. 
Yosheb  betoch. 
Yoshebe  Yerushalayim. 
Yoshebim. 
Zekenim. 

Zekenim  and  Horim. 
Zikne  ha-aretz. 

Yom  tzom   31 

Yosheb  betoch  (President)    17 

Yoshebe  Yerushalayim  (Am)  31,  5i 

Yoshebim  (Am)    18,  42 

Zangwill    15 

Zebach  34 

Zechariah,  President  of  Am 20 

Zedekiah,  King 28,  37,  47,  48,  60 

Captured  28 

Blinded  and  carried  to  Babylon  28 

Zekenim 6,  7,  8,  33,  39,  40,  42,  43 

Zekenim  and  Horim  (Am  of  the  Northern  Kingdom) 43 

Zelophehad's  Daughters  9 

Zikne  ha-aretz  (Am)   40 

Zophar 51 


DATE  DUE 


